(urth) Seawrack and the Mother

David Stockhoff dstockhoff at verizon.net
Thu Oct 4 06:12:13 PDT 2012


That's very interesting. I've read very little Milton outside PL, so I 
can't follow you too far. But you almost seem to be saying that 
Severian's "magic" is a /moral /or spiritual magic, not a physical or 
simply supernatural one---however one might characterize magic as we 
usually see it portrayed.

On 10/4/2012 12:08 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:
> Yeah, it's a common trope, but it helps me grind my Milton/Wolfe 
> axe...at least in my head.
>
> As for the higher/lower, Wizard Knight is the main idea. But 
> Briah/Yesod fit something along those lines. Honestly, it's Milton's 
> monism that makes me find the most compelling connection to Wolfe. 
> I've always wondered if there's a "theory" of 
> fantasy/magic/supernatural/spiritual in Wolfe that is something like 
> the monism Milton outlines in _Christian Doctrine_. The way Milton 
> describes it, the moral character of a material body affects its 
> spiritual capacity, which is an interesting way to explain the odd 
> supernaturalism of Severian, say, or the Claw, which are "magical" but 
> only in ambiguous ways.
>
> That's the kernel, at least. I haven't actually thought it through.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Seawrack and the Mother
>
> Spirit (mind) is usually said to animate or organize matter (body). 
> This makes spirit active (light) and matter passive (dark), which 
> usually translates to male and female principles, for obvious reasons 
> involving agriculture as well as animal husbandry, never mind the 
> convenience of having both a sun and a moon to illustrate them. So the 
> two sexes are very useful as concepts for ordering the universe. (You 
> have to wonder how a sentient species without sexes would view the 
> universe. Again, I can only think of the Elder Ones . . . ugh.)
>
> Wolfe has a lot of beings inhabiting other bodies. But he resists the 
> archaic, sexist implications, in that his "vessels" are always full 
> and complete characters, though he does tend to make the genders of 
> rider and mount match---not always.
>
> I can't think of any other particular examples of "above" organizing 
> "below," except perhaps in Wizard/Knight.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>
>     *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:45 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: (urth) Seawrack and the Mother
>
>     Speaking of Milton, in the creation story of PL,
>     chaos/matter/nature are always feminine. God implants order into
>     the "womb of nature" as he says. It's a matter more of imagery
>     rather than direct characterization, but still interesting.
>
>     Don't know how/if that applies to Wolfe. I've always seen
>     interesting analogies between Milton and Wolfe (levels of
>     spirituality/sacredness, matter/spirit monism) but the theologies
>     shouldn't map onto each other in the end for a variety of reasons.
>
>     On Sep 30, 2012, at 12:12 PM, David Stockhoff
>     <dstockhoff at verizon.net <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     > On 9/30/2012 4:27 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:
>     >> On 9/23/2012 5:27 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> It doesn't quite fit. I meant (1) two sexes (a) separate or (b)
>     >>> combined, or (2) no sexes, but also pointing out that a single
>     male or
>     >>> female seeder/birther/creator isn't really any of those. That
>     is, you
>     >>> can't have only one sex. Incest is a bit like two-housed
>     >>> hermaphroditism, from this perspective.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I think you can have a single sexed creator if the created is
>     the other sex.
>     >>
>     > How would that work, exactly?
>     >
>     > ---If a female creator spawned (through parthenogenesis?) a male
>     creation?
>     >
>     > ---Or if a female creation developed from a sperm cell?
>     >
>     > Parent-offspring incest would then follow. It's conceivable, but
>     sounds deliberately perverse, like something Lovecraftian or
>     Milton's Satan.
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Urth Mailing List
>     > To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>     > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Urth Mailing List
>     To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>     Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net <http://www.urth.net/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net <http://www.urth.net/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121004/4728d1d0/attachment-0004.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list