<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jwilson@clueland.com
href="mailto:jwilson@clueland.com">Jeff Wilson</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">On
11/13/2011 8:48 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:<BR>> > > The sky is not a
reflection. You are imagining a mirror, and a<BR>> > refection, all your
own.<BR>> > > You are creating your own poem here.<BR>> >
The ‘noose of light’ around the turret is reflected sunlight. It’s not<BR>>
> exactly a conventional mirror, but when you see it you *are* seeing
the<BR>> > Sun.<BR><BR>> I think you are reaching here, Gerry, and if
it's to make a point that <BR>> point is eluding me.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Two
different issues here. The first is what the poet means by “noose of
light” and the second is the question of whether the Sun is actually present, or
to what degree its presence and relevance are implied.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>> There might be a reflected image of the sun visible *in* the
surface of <BR>> a turret, but I don't see how the reflection could surround
the turret <BR>> without some further, smooth background object to cast the
reflection. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are correct in that the ‘noose’ cannot really stretch all the way
around the tower. But don’t forget that the viewer can only see 180
degrees, and can imagine the rest.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I had a quick glance at Google images – the large skyscraper at centre
right in the image below is close to the sort of image I was thinking of, even
though the ‘noose’ is incomplete. But maybe the hunter is pulling from the
right and the noose does not contact the beast’s neck there! </DIV>
<DIV> <A title=http://photholic.com/sky/tokyo-tower-at-dawn/
href="http://photholic.com/sky/tokyo-tower-at-dawn/">http://photholic.com/sky/tokyo-tower-at-dawn/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I thought of this imagery right away for ‘noose of light’. Maybe I’m
getting what the poet meant, or maybe I’m more idiosyncratic than I
supposed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Okay, now the question of seeing the Sun:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> If the sunlight need only be reflected by anything to count as
letting <BR>> the observer see the sun, then *everything* not self-luminous
shows us <BR>> the sun, and the distinction of the noose is
meaningless.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There’s been a fair amount of philosophical discussion regarding the
epistemology of what it means to see someone or something. Let’s not go
there! I think, however, most would agree that to see something means, in
general, to be reliably informed of that thing’s presence by a visual signal
emanating from it. [Of course there can be a billion nuances.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I used the example of a mirror as a case where no light from something
impinges on our eyes, and yet almost everyone would agree that we see the thing,
almost as if we saw it head on. A periscope would be another
example. In one sense the soldier in the trench cannot see the enemy; in
another sense he can see them very well using his periscope. What if he
can only see their uniforms, and cannot see the skin of an actual enemy?
We start to decide whether he can see the enemy in terms of the *reliability* of
the connection of what he sees to the presence and location of the enemy.
We are worried that they may have placed their uniforms on sticks and are
quietly approaching the trench from another direction. In this case, the
soldier is not actually seeing the enemy at all – he only thinks he
is. And that would apply also if he could use his eyes directly –
though the enemy might be less likely to get away with it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Similar considerations apply to all the senses. Does the mouse hear
the cat when he hears its bell?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Okay, back to the Sun and the light it shines on the Sultan’s Turret.
My argument is that the light is of a colour and configuration that is
characteristic of the rising Sun and of nothing else (okay, it could be a
nuclear detonation in the desert, or an elaborate light-show contrived to fool
us, but such things are unlikely). We see it and we reliably and
specifically know the exact direction of the Sun, and it’s condition and actions
(it is about to rise). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One can debate, I suppose, about whether we ‘see’ the Sun here. But
the question originally asked was “<FONT face="Times New Roman">where is the
rising sun in the poem”. I say it is just there, over the horizon in that
direction. We will see it in a moment and its effects already dominate
everything we see, from the pale morning sky that has replaced the bowl of night
with its stars, to the light shining around the tops of towers, which the
over-imaginative may see as a noose. The Sun is unequivocally *present* in
the poem; it is everywhere in it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">And I do not believe that is the case with
Orion. Certainly he is known to be among the vanquished stars, and the
astronomically inclined can probable point in a particular direction, depending
on the time of year. But is he a presence, any more than (say) Sagittarius
or the Milky Way? I don’t think so, and I don’t think the mere use of the
word ‘Hunter’ is enough to bring him into the picture. I guess one reason
I feel so strongly about that is that I think I ‘get’ the ‘noose of light’
imagery, and once one accepts that the noose of light is cast by the Sun, it
makes even less sense to me to be thinking about Orion since ‘Hunter’ is
completely explained.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>> Perhaps the noose is the circular limb of the solar disc
itself, or the <BR>> refractory halo in the atmosphere, with the suiltan's
turret silhouetted <BR>> against it. Some representative photos:<BR>>
<BR>> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111112.html<BR>> <BR>> <A
href="http://www.upiu.com/other/2011/03/19/Ecuador-atmospheric-phenomena-seen-around-the-sun/UPIU-301300519322/">http://www.upiu.com/other/2011/03/19/Ecuador-atmospheric-phenomena-seen-around-the-sun/UPIU-301300519322/</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>These don’t really work well for me. The first one isn’t really a
noose, and apart from that it could be around anything, not especially the high
tower implied by “Sultan’s Turret”. In fact, we would expect it to be, at
least at first, around a low object.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The second is more of a noose, but the Sun does not often have such a halo,
and it’s even suggested in the link that you would expect to see it at midday
rather than dawn.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- Gerry Quinn</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>