I wonder if Chaucer understood, to a degree, the connection of self-text when he added his "Retraction" at the close of The Canterbury Tales, distancing his work from any relation of "mystical text" meant to be worshipped or made into a "relic."
Also, I have a question regarding your argument: "A body can serve as a text, but it cannot serve as a religious relic, at least not until it is dead and sainted."
But what if that body is the Pardoner himself? Not only is this wicked man holding encyclopedic knowledge of scripture, not unlike dear Cromwell, but uses it as an excuse to further commit sins of the flesh to himself and others he might benefit from, not to mention his using of fake relics to gain material wealth.
Perhaps there is also a present danger of not only losing oneself to AI and cybernetics, but also to zealots who believe that certain texts can transform them into "living relics" that are meant to purify their environment, and if their means of correction pose a danger to others, then they are absolved of any guilt simply by being a vessel of the mystical text, which they can interpret far better than others.
I am slowly coming to a realization that maybe exposing yourself to text has an immense power to change the self, but it is important not to let the text fully consume the self (lack of humanity) or the connection to others might be severed completely (leading to witch hunts).
Gosh--great points, Robert! The Pardoner certainly demonstrates that textual knowledge can be used to mislead and manipulate, and no doubt this is still true. I suppose that the fact that the Pardoner himself is a slippery signifier of we-know-not-what could act as a kind of analogy to the AI text--an uncanny simulacrum of genuine humanity. As to your last point, I’m reminded of the Parson, who has textual knowledge but is not consumed by it; he teaches but also acts compassionately.
More proof that Chaucer can always teach us something!
Great observation!
I wonder if Chaucer understood, to a degree, the connection of self-text when he added his "Retraction" at the close of The Canterbury Tales, distancing his work from any relation of "mystical text" meant to be worshipped or made into a "relic."
Also, I have a question regarding your argument: "A body can serve as a text, but it cannot serve as a religious relic, at least not until it is dead and sainted."
But what if that body is the Pardoner himself? Not only is this wicked man holding encyclopedic knowledge of scripture, not unlike dear Cromwell, but uses it as an excuse to further commit sins of the flesh to himself and others he might benefit from, not to mention his using of fake relics to gain material wealth.
Perhaps there is also a present danger of not only losing oneself to AI and cybernetics, but also to zealots who believe that certain texts can transform them into "living relics" that are meant to purify their environment, and if their means of correction pose a danger to others, then they are absolved of any guilt simply by being a vessel of the mystical text, which they can interpret far better than others.
I am slowly coming to a realization that maybe exposing yourself to text has an immense power to change the self, but it is important not to let the text fully consume the self (lack of humanity) or the connection to others might be severed completely (leading to witch hunts).
Gosh--great points, Robert! The Pardoner certainly demonstrates that textual knowledge can be used to mislead and manipulate, and no doubt this is still true. I suppose that the fact that the Pardoner himself is a slippery signifier of we-know-not-what could act as a kind of analogy to the AI text--an uncanny simulacrum of genuine humanity. As to your last point, I’m reminded of the Parson, who has textual knowledge but is not consumed by it; he teaches but also acts compassionately.
More proof that Chaucer can always teach us something!