From: matthew.malthouse@guardian.co.uk
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:37:16 +0000
Subject: Re: (urth) Re: The irrigation of Lune




On 07/03/2002 06:49:06 Roy C. Lackey wrote:

>From: matthew.malthouse@guardian.co.uk 
>>Why "Retribution"?
>>
>>The Increate's servants seem to be looking for - or even forcing - some
>>sort of redemption in Man. If they are responsible for the wounding of
the
>>sun (a view I favour) I'd be more inclined to see it as a stimulus or
goad
>>pushing towards that goal.
>
>Precisely. You have just restated my case. Redemption and retribution
come
>to the same thing in this case. As I quoted before:
>
>"The death agonies of the world you know will be offered to the
Increate."
>
>If that isn't retribution, I'll shoot my dictionary! As to "why" the
>Increate should regard the deaths of millions, many, many generations
>removed from the presumed offences of their ancestors as desirable, only
the
>Increate knows.

I think that's why I didn't like the word: the punitive aspect was
strongest in my mind and my dictionary emphasises 'deserved' which I
cannot see.

As for redemption, four definitions are near sysnonyms for retribution
while the fifth perculilarly Christian one - salvation from sin through
[Jesus'] sacrifice - runs counter: those saved don't pay, the payment has
been made...

I'm not making any sort of case here, just registering a distinct unease
with the apparent concequences.

Matthew



--