FIND in
<--prev V206 next-->
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:36:14 -0500
From: Jeff Wilson 
Subject: Re: (urth) Some problems if the Pancreator/Outsider is theHoly

> From: James Jordan 

> At 03:08 PM 6/10/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >James Jordan wrote:
> > > .... remember that Urth is a universe-cycle before ours. These events
> > > predate the promise to Noah by about 50 billion years maybe. We don't know
> > > that such a promise had been given to any Urnoah in Urth history. Nor,
> > > returning to the first point, do we have to assume that God managed Briah
> > > precisely the same way He manages our cycle.
> > >
> >
> >I've come across this stated in the archives before; is the source an
> >extra-textual Wolfe interview or the like?
>          Yes.

	Did he explain why he has completely reversed his statements in the
appendix of Shadow?
> >The reason I ask is because it seems
> >odd that in a whole different cycle of creation you'd still get the Apollo
> >moon
> >landing whose picture is recognizable as such.  And as someone else mentioned,
> >how would Severian's box with BOTNS make it through the singularity?
>          Well, the fact that is does somehow pass through the singularity,
> on board the Ship perhaps, or in the Yesod Library, is the intra-textual
> indicator that these events are in our past. That's always the problem with
> Wolfe: which of the tiny hints are important and which of the hints are not
> hints at all?

	Where is this "fact" documented?

> >That aside, what's going on with that window into the 20th c. in the botanical
> >gardens?
>          Protestant missionaries of the Theoanthropos. Well, like the
> Apollo picture, somehow this earlier BangganB of the cosmos is much like
> ours, but not quite the same. I do think we have an incarnation of the 2nd
> person of God in this earlier cosmos, the aforementioned Theoanthropos, the
> original Conciliator of which Severian is an application, but as
> Dan'l  mentioned, from some Roman Catholic perspectives the atonement of
> the Son is "eternal" so it could "happen" in time more than once. If this
> was not in Wolfe's mind, then I doubt if we are supposed to press the
> problem of a repeated crucifixion.

	Whay can't this just be regarded as allegorical? The crucifixion would
not be repeated so much as represented, it avoids all problems with
time-binding statements and promises attributed to G-d, doesn't make a
liar out of the translator, and doesn't require the Book to travel half
a universe backward, get translated, then come 1 1/2 forward to be

Jeff Wilson
How Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789
"If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy." -Cpt Law


<--prev V206 next-->