<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Glad to see that we are once again at the level of "civil discourse".<BR><BR>
<DIV>F.P. Kiesche III</DIV>
<DIV>"Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented with <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire</SPAN>.) Blogging at <A href="http://theeternalgoldenbraid.blogspot.com/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>The Lensman's Children</A> and <A href="http://texasbestgrok.mu.nu/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>TexasBestGrok</A>!</DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 4/2/09, brunians@brunians.org <I><brunians@brunians.org></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: brunians@brunians.org <brunians@brunians.org><BR>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolllfe's Politics<BR>To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth@lists.urth.net><BR>Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 3:11 PM<BR><BR><PRE>You'll thank me even more after you read them, and also embarrass yourself
less when you choose to discuss these matters.
.
> Thanks for your help there, Brunians. priceless.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: brunians@brunians.org [mailto:brunians@brunians.org]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:05 AM
>>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"GeneWolfe's
Politics
>>
>>OK, reread it and read the other three.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>>
>>> I read The Prince a LONG time ago...
>>>
>>> ~witz
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: brunians@brunians.org [mailto:brunians@brunians.org]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 10:48 AM
>>>>To: 'The Urth Mailing List'
>>>>Subject: Re: (urth) "Principlesofgovernaaance"Gene
Wolfe's Politics
>>>>
>>>>Witz: go read Plato's "Republic", Aristotle's
"Politics" and Niccolo
>>>>Machiavelli's two works "Discourses On The First Ten
Books Of Titus
>>>>Livius" and "The Prince".
>>>>
>>>>This will give you the vocabulary that you currently lack for
>>>> discussing
>>>>this kind of thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> refresher quote, questions below:
>>>>>
>>>>> SHADOW XXXII Five Legs:
>>>>>
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>>> "Severian. Name for me the seven principles of
governance."
>>>>> It was an effort for me to speak, but I managed (in my
dream, if it
>>>>> was
>>>>> a
>>>>> dream)to say, "I do not recall that we have studied
such a thing,
>>>>> Master."
>>>>> "You were always the most careless of my boys,"
he told me, and fell
>>>>> silent.
>>>>> A foreboding grew on me; I sensed that if I did not reply,
some
>>>>> tragedy
>>>>> would
>>>>> occur. At last I began weakly, "Anarchy . . ."
>>>>> "That is not governance, but the lack of it. I taught
you that it
>>>>> precedes
>>>>> all governance. Now list the seven sorts."
>>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch. Attachment
to a bloodline
>>>>> or
>>>>> other
>>>>> sequence of succession. Attachment to the royal state.
Attachment to
>>>>> a
>>>>> code
>>>>> legitimizing the governing state. Attachment to the law
only.
>>>>> Attachment
>>>>> to a
>>>>> greater or lesser board of electors, as framers of the
law.
>>>>> Attachment
>>>>> to
>>>>> an
>>>>> abstraction conceived as including the body of electors,
other bodies
>>>>> giving
>>>>> rise to them, and numerous other elements, largely
ideal."
>>>>> "Tolerable. Of these, which is the earliest form, and
which the
>>>>> highest?"
>>>>> "The development is in the order given, Master,"
I said. "But I do
>>>>> not
>>>>> recall
>>>>> that you ever asked before which was highest?'
>>>>> Master Malrubius leaned forward, his eyes burning brighter
than the
>>>>> coals
>>>>> of the
>>>>> fire. "Which is highest, Severian?"
>>>>> "The last, Master?"
>>>>> "You mean attachment to an abstraction conceived as
including the
>>>>> body
>>>>> of
>>>>> electors, other bodies giving rise to them, and numerous
other
>>>>> elements,
>>>>> largely ideal?"
>>>>> "Yes, Master."
>>>>> "Of what kind, Severian, is your own attachment to
the Divine
>>>>> Entity?"
>>>>> I said nothing. It may have been that I was thinking; but
if so, my
>>>>> mind
>>>>> was too much filled with sleep to be conscious of its
thought.
>>>>> Instead,
>>>>> I
>>>>> became
>>>>> profoundly aware of my physical surroundings. The sky
above my face
>>>>> in
>>>>> all
>>>>> its
>>>>> grandeur seemed to have been made solely for my benefit,
and to be
>>>>> presented for my inspection now. I lay upon the ground as
upon a
>>>>> woman,
>>>>> and the very air that surrounded me seemed a thing as
admirable as
>>>>> crystal
>>>>> and as fluid as wine.
>>>>> "Answer me, Severian."
>>>>> "The first, if I have any."
>>>>> "To the person of the monarch?"
>>>>> "Yes, because there is no succession."
>>>>> "The animal that rests beside you now would die for
you. Of what kind
>>>>> is
>>>>> his
>>>>> attachment to you?"
>>>>> "The first?"
>>>>>
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, is the last one meant to be a joke about our current
situation?
>>>>> Abstraction, largely ideal.
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe some conservatives can help me out here.
>>>>> "Attachment to the person of the monarch"
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand, I don't understand how "Attachment
to" is governance.
>>>>> Are
>>>>> the people attached, or is the governance attached?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another question this brings up for me. This notion of a
Divine
>>>>> Ruler...
>>>>> You get it in the Grail myths, and I suppose in the Jesus
Myth, this
>>>>> idea
>>>>> of bringing back the Divine King. I'm not sure if
that's right, but
>>>>> it's
>>>>> something that seems to come up in various traditions.
Anyway, While
>>>>> anyone could sort of get behind letting God's Vicar
rule, if it could
>>>>> be
>>>>> proven. Yet we've had plenty of crappy rulers claiming
God's mandate.
>>>>> anyway, How can this idea of a Monarch that is the best
system jibe
>>>>> with
>>>>> reality lacking an unambiguous 'seal of approval'
from God?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me rephrase? This seems like a sort of religious
right position
>>>>> (maybe I'm totally wrong) So, would anyone toss away
democracy in
>>>>> favor
>>>>> of a monarch? How can this notion not be "largely
ideal" when it
>>>>> hinges
>>>>> upon the character of a single person?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if I'm making this clear. I'm
trying to understand how
>>>>> this
>>>>> can be considered the highest state of governance in a
practical,
>>>>> non-ideal world.
>>>>>
>>>>> just asking...
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Witz
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Urth Mailing List
>>>>> To post, write urth@urth.net
>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Urth Mailing List
>>>>To post, write urth@urth.net
>>>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth@urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Urth Mailing List
>>To post, write urth@urth.net
>>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth@urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth@urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>