tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post113117472128910034..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: "real" aliens... and bad sci fiDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131473296927661562005-11-08T10:08:00.000-08:002005-11-08T10:08:00.000-08:00@AlanLet me see what that definition of assembly i...@Alan<BR/><BR/>Let me see what that definition of assembly is that you're using, because I want to know how the Catholic hierarchy doesn't conform to one.<BR/><BR/>I see this is turning into an open universe / closed universe debate, in the philosophical sense. In my open universe, one assumes an answer may lie beyond the confines of the system. In my closed universe one assumes all answers must be provided by the system.<BR/><BR/>Since you appear to be a micronationalist, I'll assume you lean towards the closed universe system. IE, that you have the answer to everything. ;)<BR/><BR/>If I am enjoying a story I invent what is necessary for cohesion. Apparently you can't enjoy a story that isn't cohesive.<BR/><BR/>Unless you want to discuss how personality and other internal systemic factors must influence enjoyment and happiness, we should leave it to a difference in personalities. Meyers-Briggs and Keirsey tests generally show me as an INTJ. What about yourself?<BR/><BR/>'Nuff said?HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131466560822024942005-11-08T08:16:00.000-08:002005-11-08T08:16:00.000-08:00Is your point that nobody can hold together a gove...<I>Is your point that nobody can hold together a government for more than an arbitrary (fill in the blank) number of years?</I><BR/><BR/>No. <BR/><BR/><I>Let's see. The Icelandic Althing and Athenian democracy each lasted about 300 years. I think the Jesuits just celebrated 500 years. The Christian Church is closing in on 2000 (I'm not counting the birth and life, but you can if you like).</I><BR/><BR/>300 is somewhat less than several thousand. The last two institutions do not not meet the definition of republic or assembly.<BR/><BR/><I>The founding of the Japanese Empire is roughly 2700 years ago. Although a single governing assembly is not even debatable, how do you know the concept of the Republic being several thousand years old isn't a bit of similar hyperbole (if you want to call it hyperbole).</I><BR/><BR/>The Japanese date is mythology. It is reasonable to look at what the films say rather than try inventing excuses like recent development. I do not know that Pierre in <I>War and Peace</I> is not a secret agent for the Chinese emperor, but I tend to avoid readings where it's necessary to believe he is.<BR/><BR/><I>And as I said, if this is a republic with only near light speed drive for much of it's existence, the Republic was a strategic council, not one that could work proactively in concert on much of anything.</I><BR/><BR/>The near light speed theory is not anything said by a character or even suggested in any way. <BR/><BR/>All I argued was that a galactic political elite with a long parliamentary history could reasonably be expected to show a certain degree of political sophistication. Lucas has not come anywhere near suggesting that or even understanding that he needs to do it..Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380879931884468493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131392803398186332005-11-07T11:46:00.000-08:002005-11-07T11:46:00.000-08:00Alan wrote, "... granting untrammelled powers to t...Alan wrote, "... granting untrammelled powers to the executive is generally a bad idea, even in war time. "<BR/><BR/>My point was, we have a written history of three thousand years and have forgotten a great deal more. We still see that 'bad idea' perpetuated or repeated today. Why shouldn't Lucas's Republic not make the same mistake. Especially with so many cultures being represented and a general hands off policy in interplanetary affairs being the prior condition. <BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Perhaps you could point me to the republics and governing assemblies that have existed on Earth for several thousand years?</I><BR/><BR/>Is your point that nobody can hold together a government for more than an arbitrary (fill in the blank) number of years? <BR/><BR/>Let's see. The Icelandic Althing and Athenian democracy each lasted about 300 years. I think the Jesuits just celebrated 500 years. The Christian Church is closing in on 2000 (I'm not counting the birth and life, but you can if you like). <BR/><BR/>The founding of the Japanese Empire is roughly 2700 years ago. Although a single governing assembly is not even debatable, how do you know the concept of the Republic being several thousand years old isn't a bit of similar hyperbole (if you want to call it hyperbole).<BR/><BR/>And as I said, if this is a republic with only near light speed drive for much of it's existence, the Republic was a strategic council, not one that could work proactively in concert on much of anything.HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131360285130466132005-11-07T02:44:00.000-08:002005-11-07T02:44:00.000-08:00The senate must have been doing something for the ...<I>The senate must have been doing something for the last several thousand years, but it evidently did not include learning that granting untrammelled powers to the executive is generally a bad idea, even in war time.</I><BR/><BR/><B>We've had several thousand years at this civilization thing and we're still doing what you describe as a 'generally' bad idea.</B><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could point me to the republics and governing assemblies that have existed on Earth for several thousand years?Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380879931884468493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131327606350804332005-11-06T17:40:00.000-08:002005-11-06T17:40:00.000-08:00"Father, take this burden from me..." in Gethseman...<I>"Father, take this burden from me..." in Gethsemane. Won't Jesus find redemption from God for this weakness, and by carrying forward his intentions? Isn't that the only way for his ascension to occur?</I><BR/><BR/>Dunno. The idea that someone would die to save another's stuff is anathema to me, so I don't give trad Christian soteriology much rigor.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131321772697061132005-11-06T16:02:00.000-08:002005-11-06T16:02:00.000-08:00In Christian soteriology, the son died to redeem t...<I>In Christian soteriology, the son died to redeem the father's stuff.</I><BR/><BR/>Right. Of course. I had my head up my butt on that one. But keep in mind that in a time of idolatry and political turmoil, Jesus had redeemed God in the eyes of his disciples. A distant and impersonal God had (once again) been replaced by a miraculous God. Not Jesus himself necessarily, but a God that can enable Jesus to do miracles like Moses and the prophets.<BR/><BR/>"Father, take this burden from me..." in Gethsemane. Won't Jesus find redemption from God for this weakness, and by carrying forward his intentions? Isn't that the only way for his ascension to occur?<BR/><BR/><I>In Oedipus, the son killed the father, ignorant of who it was he was killing.</I><BR/><BR/>In Oedipus, the father sends the infant son out to be killed to avoid the (back to the prediction registry) prophecy that the son will kill the father and wed the mother. Of course nobody is really redeemed in this one.<BR/><BR/><I>In David and Solomon, the father killed the mother's husband in order to mask the father's identity to the husband.</I><BR/><BR/>God prohibits the father David from building him a temple (The First Temple) because of his misdeeds and acts of violence. It is left to Solomon and a peaceful kingdom to build it following David's demise. However Solomon doesn't cause the demise of David so it's definitely more obscure in this context.<BR/><BR/><I>But in any case, none of that is a creation myth. </I><BR/><BR/>True. But don't creation myths like Zeus, who slays Jupiter before he can be eaten, have relevance here? Campbell's references are often obscure to me but may be more relevant to you.HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131320044437980922005-11-06T15:34:00.000-08:002005-11-06T15:34:00.000-08:00@ David Brin --On a more serious note, I wonder if...@ David Brin --<BR/><BR/>On a more serious note, I wonder if...<BR/><BR/><I>What's wonderful and hilarious is that these are usually guys who have benefited profoundly from a gentle civilization that has succored and fed and clothed and educated and subsidized them... but alas, that society hasn't made them rich or put them in charge. </I><BR/><BR/>...has relevance in terms of the kids running around France this week and last?<BR/><BR/>Especially after reading in the Washington Post that some of the details of their anarchy include the use of refined products (like gasoline) as accelerants for their bombs, and the use of complex communications networks (cell phones) to coordinate getting away from the Gendarmes as they do their wreaking?<BR/><BR/>I read details like that and think, among other things, "these kids are *poor*? How did they afford the cell phones!?" ...which is unfair, I know. <BR/><BR/>But the use of the cell phones is interesting cleverness, just barely. It's also evidence that those "youths" are far better organized than the news is letting on, or overtly denying.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131319196660871072005-11-06T15:19:00.001-08:002005-11-06T15:19:00.001-08:00"A flawed father and a better son is not a reverse..."A flawed father and a better son is not a reverse Messiah theme since it predates Christ"<BR/><BR/>Didn't say anything about the quality of the father or son, only that the son redeemed the father. <BR/><BR/>In Christian soteriology, the son died to redeem the father's stuff.<BR/><BR/>In Oedipus, the son killed the father, ignorant of who it was he was killing. <BR/><BR/>In David and Solomon, the father killed the mother's husband in order to mask the father's identity to the husband.<BR/><BR/>In Star Wars, the father died to save the son, but only after the son rejected the father's mentor's memes, which father held out to son in order to try and defeat mentor... oh never mind. :-)<BR/><BR/>But in any case, none of that is a creation myth. Gilgamesh is... a long complicated story that doesn't appear on the surface to have much to do with Star Wars, but might make a wonderful underpinning for a compelling sci-fi romance! :-DRob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131319194268920322005-11-06T15:19:00.000-08:002005-11-06T15:19:00.000-08:00You can't polish a turd. (Not unless you freeze it...<I>You can't polish a turd. (Not unless you freeze it first, and even then it's still just a shiny turd.)<BR/><BR/>Stefan</I><BR/><BR/>Good thing you weren't advising Shakespeare. "You want to rewrite <I>The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet</I>. Why that turd?"HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131318219067577232005-11-06T15:03:00.000-08:002005-11-06T15:03:00.000-08:00... it's the story of the redemption of Anakin Sky...<I>... it's the story of the redemption of Anakin Skywalker by his son, which is an interesting twist on the Christian messianic theme, if you think about it in those terms.</I><BR/><BR/>A flawed father and a better son is not a reverse Messiah theme since it predates Christ. There are a number of creation myths, Gilgamesh works this way in a sense, Kings David and Solomon, and so on. Oedipus's father can not escape his fate and perpetrates the very act of betrayal that will ensure it. (Oh No. Tell me this isn't where Harry Potter and Voldemort are headed! Hey, there's another prediction registry for you in those novels, David.)<BR/><BR/>This is where Lucas's rendering of Joseph Campbell's works comes in. I doubt Lucas is alone on the contemporary scene when you consider Children of Dune (as well as Children of the Lens) and a few other works. <BR/><BR/>How many sons would not try to redeem their fathers or at least their good names? How many fathers would not try to redeem their sons, in any case?. I think it represents a part of the gestalt, or one of the reasons we can conceive of a gestalt.HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131316411814203462005-11-06T14:33:00.000-08:002005-11-06T14:33:00.000-08:00"Who was Lucas listening to when he put those in?"..."Who was Lucas listening to when he put those in?"<BR/><BR/>Supposedly, Lucas put them in for his then-young children. I've read -- forget where -- that he regrets it now.<BR/><BR/>I was so disgusted with Episode III that I've just given up on the whole enterprise. From where I am, there is no use trying to redeem or justify or rewrite it. I have no plans to buy any of the movies in any medium. I don't read, or skim through, posts on the subject. If Lucas produces the rumored TV show, I won't watch it . . . not even if smart people write for it.<BR/><BR/>You can't polish a turd. (Not unless you freeze it first, and even then it's still just a shiny turd.)<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131314467015821002005-11-06T14:01:00.000-08:002005-11-06T14:01:00.000-08:00"("We'll rule the universe -- it'll be like 'Sanfo...<I>"("We'll rule the universe -- it'll be like 'Sanford and Son,' but with exploding planets!")"</I>. A hysterical image of space debris surrounding a beat up Death Star comes to mind. Yoda could be the righteous Aunt.<BR/><BR/>I'm not certain I know my deontic from my teleological. I'm not even certain it's my comment to which you're replying. <BR/><BR/>I only meant to express that Lucas had plenty of historical examples for his back story. And I agree, there is a better story when the philosophical underpinnings are well thought out. <BR/><BR/>Essentially, Anakin's character is flawed. His destiny would probably have been much the same, but he would have been happier remaining with his mother, with a handsome reward, away from Tatooine, Naboo, and Coruscant. <BR/><BR/>Here's an Episode 2 might have been. Anakin would have been drawn into Palpatine's plans regardless, at some level. We might have seen him as a Roycean colonel or general in Amidala's army before they go off to vanquish the Death Star. Amidala could be captured in the attack and Anakin turned by the Emperor, only 18 (?) years late and without an heir. Now where would that have put episodes 3 through 6?<BR/><BR/>Anakin could be frozen in stasis, ready to be turned by the emperor, but Amidala is rescued by the handsome Han Solo (introduced in episode 2). They both infiltrate the Emperor's new Death Star with the help of a surviving Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda. Anakin is rescued and trained by the pair. <BR/><BR/>Episode 4. The denouement. The final confrontation where the trio, (representing the deontic, teleological, and Roycean) trap Palpatine and destroy him with nihilistic argument and abandon. <BR/><BR/>However the modernist philosophy of Han sways Amidala (we may need to alter their dialogs), they fall in love and marry while our musketeers are out of town. Han turns to a political career in the New Senate while Amidala becomes pregnant, takes up charity work and (down the road) raises the children, while the Wookie runs the household. Strangely, her eldest child looks like no one so much as Palpitane.<BR/><BR/>Upon their return, Yoda and Obi-Wan establish the Jedi Order, Reform, with new philosophical underpinnings and Anakin receives the Millenium Falcon from Amidala and Han in gratitude. <BR/><BR/>There. Done in 4 movies and nothing really lost except Anakin's apprenticeship, the rise of the clone army, and Ewoks. I never liked the Ewoks with their yip-yip-yipping. Who was Lucas listening to when he put those in?HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131310885942671102005-11-06T13:01:00.000-08:002005-11-06T13:01:00.000-08:00Wow, watchful, I think you just kindled the hopes ...Wow, watchful, I think you just kindled the hopes of fanboys everywhere, by finding a rubric under which Lucas' stuff *might* make sense.<BR/><BR/>Trouble is, Lucas himself doesn't ever describe his story in those terms, who says it's the story of the redemption of Anakin Skywalker by his son, which is an interesting twist on the Christian messianic theme, if you think about it in those terms. <BR/><BR/>Lots of valid points here, but I went to Ep III knowing going in that I wasn't going to get a tenable morality play. Or, from the writing and directing, much of a play at all. <BR/><BR/>"Hold me, Anakin! The way you did by the lake on Naboo, when there was just our love!" Or some such.<BR/><BR/>Clunky Archetypes. <BR/><BR/>But I still enjoyed it, because I went for what art there was; John Williams' appropriatly American-symphonic score, expressed in near visual perfection by literal armies of artists and artisans. And for the choreographed sword-fights, developed over years. <BR/><BR/>Lucas once pointed out that he made Episode I to be seen as a scored but otherwise silent film; that's where he puts his stories. The dialogue is obviously secondary to him. I could go on, but why?Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131306595887526962005-11-06T11:49:00.000-08:002005-11-06T11:49:00.000-08:00If I had more faith in Lucas as a humanist, I'd be...If I had more faith in Lucas as a humanist, I'd be inclined to see SW as a clash between the three primary modes of Western ethics: deontic, teleological, and justice-based. The Jedis' deontic ethics lead to a completely untenable end: accept whatever exterior evil you must to avoid doing active wrong. The Sith, on the other hand, are consummately teleological in their ethical approach: sure, we've had to plunge the galaxy into a decades-long civil war with incalcuable loss of life and a government based on oderint<BR/>dum metuant -- but really, we're better than the alternative.<BR/><BR/>But in the final movies, we're presented with what could be considered a third path: that of Luke, who rejects the deontic fallacy of Yoda ("Your friends? Eh, let them die") and the teleological madness of the Emperor and Vader ("We'll rule the universe -- it'll be like 'Sanford and Son,' but with exploding planets!") for an essentially pragmatic ethical rule. Finding deonticism too confining and teleologism ethically unbound, Luke rejects both Yoda and the Emperor in favor of Roycean loyalty. This also has the virtue of explaining why Luke does not save the galaxy: by expressing loyalty, he enables others (Vader, Han, Lando, &c.) to do justice.<BR/><BR/>Since I have no faith in Lucas as a storyteller, I can see him trying and in many ways failing to express this clash. (He did, if I recall, study philosophy as an undergrad.) But I'm not sure I have enough faith in his beliefs to believe my own hypothesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131298473728043322005-11-06T09:34:00.000-08:002005-11-06T09:34:00.000-08:00The senate must have been doing something for the ...<I>The senate must have been doing something for the last several thousand years, but it evidently did not include learning that granting untrammelled powers to the executive is generally a bad idea, even in war time.</I><BR/><BR/>We've had several thousand years at this civilization thing and we're still doing what you describe as a 'generally' bad idea. <BR/><BR/>You're objecting to a badly drawn caricature without having seen the actual party. <BR/><BR/>This actually seems to be an evolving civilization with frontiers and rivals. Palpatine is working on the scale of a Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao. The rivals could represent Europe, Britain, the US, and Japan. It would give me a whole new interpretation to the droid armies.<BR/><BR/>I can even imagine that the hyperdrive is a relatively recent invention and that the Republican Senate worked because it could only deal with long term strategies up until now. <BR/><BR/>Near light-speed drives make for poor troop mobilizations. You can have an Alexander, but not the Roosevelt / Marshall / Eisenhower hierarchy. A Jedi modus operandi of disassociating with the general population would be inherent in moving around as couriers and police at near light speed.<BR/><BR/>I didn't think any of this would be news to you folks. I believe part of the 'willing suspension of disbelief' means 'place a reasonable explanation for this plothole here'. <BR/><BR/>I don't know if the novels ever tackled these matters head on. Certainly the movies didn't sketch in much, but the evocations of Greek, Roman, Russian, and Chinese stories of empire are certainly there. There is just a hint of Dr. Zhivago in the first three episodes for me.HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131294246144681612005-11-06T08:24:00.000-08:002005-11-06T08:24:00.000-08:00The silliest feature of the first three movies is ...The silliest feature of the first three movies is that the great and powerful galactic elite (both sides, but especially the Jedi) have the political skills and institutional understanding of the average house brick.<BR/><BR/>The senate must have been doing something for the last several thousand years, but it evidently did not include learning that granting untrammelled powers to the executive is generally a bad idea, even in war time. Nor did it include learning that anti-corruption measures are necessary to ensure that senators and judges behave as they should.<BR/><BR/>If the best the republic can come up with to protect itself from a corrupt and dictatorial chancellor (after granting the said untrammelled powers) is a Jedi military coup then they've got a level of political sophistication about 3 centuries less advanced than ours. Evidently the mystical powers of the Jedi have never been used to think about designing political institutions.<BR/><BR/>Moving quickly from the ridiculous to the batshit crazy let's consider subtle political manoeuvres like the Jedi council trying to ensure Anakin's loyalty. The average small town council would work out that the way to keep Anakin on side is probably not to deny him mastership and then ask him to spy on Palpatine. They might even notice that their celibacy rule is probably not being followed when Anakin is shacked up with a beauteous senator. Why they'd want a celibacy rule is just another of those things we're supposed to accept because the great and powerful Lucas thinks we should.<BR/><BR/>What we end up with is pure glorification of the kind of fuehrerprinzip the great and powerful Lucas thinks he opposes.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380879931884468493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131285053192527292005-11-06T05:50:00.000-08:002005-11-06T05:50:00.000-08:00Bah, episode III had plot holes big enough to driv...Bah, episode III had plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. Obi-wan should have finished off Anakin, but really what difference would that have made?<BR/><BR/>My biggest disapointment with episode III is how IRRELEVANT the whole Anakin story was. After all the set up that Anakin was the one to "hunt down and destroy the jedi" he is only personally involved in the death of ONE jedi, and only in a supporting role. The jedi were betrayed by the clone troopers, under orders from Palpatine, in a pre-existing plan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131284767261831732005-11-06T05:46:00.000-08:002005-11-06T05:46:00.000-08:00I don't mind condemning the whole thing to being s...I don't mind condemning the whole thing to being space opera. The movies are essentially romances. I notice no one brings up EE Doc Smith, with his Skylark and Lensman novels as a progenitor of space opera in this discussion. Why is that?<BR/><BR/>The Jedi are not supposed to be the 'light' to the 'Sith' after all. They are supposed to represent the balanced middle ground. So of course they come up unbalanced in holding up the 'light' as the ideal. <BR/><BR/>But they fail even as pragmatists. Yoda must simply find humans and their allies too devious for comprehension. The Sith apparently arise out of the Jedi order spontaneously.HarCohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461182873868141978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131263123372243562005-11-05T23:45:00.000-08:002005-11-05T23:45:00.000-08:00I actually finished rewatching episode 3 a few day...I actually finished rewatching episode 3 a few days ago and yet another thing struck me as nasty Jedi behaviour. As Anakin is apparently slowly burning to death, Obi-Wan says "I loved you like a brother", but apparently this is not enough to either pull him out of the flames or put him out of his misery with a quick chop of the light saber. Admittedly this was a hole that Lucas had dug for himself back in earlier movies, but I gotta wonder if it could have been done in a way that did not portray Obi-Wan as quite so callous and cruel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131254948484160652005-11-05T21:29:00.000-08:002005-11-05T21:29:00.000-08:00I was about to react badly to your placing Card in...I was about to react badly to your placing Card in your list of authors who write super-man romances, but then I started thinking about all his stories, and all his early work is like that. <BR/><BR/>The later stuff is more complex. Ender is our superman, but he's flogged and abused in _Ender's Game_, by "lesser" men seeking to acheive results from him. After that he's kind of just a catalyst for the other characters around him, some geniuses, some not so much. <BR/><BR/>Han Qing Jiao, in _Xenocide_, is a superman, but she fails and goes mad in the process. His later stuff is less so, it seems, as the stories get to be more about the interactions between the main characters, than about the Star Wars romance malaise you describe. But still, the elements are there, aren't they?<BR/><BR/>So I guess I stand corrected about that, sort of, even before I got a chance to be spectacularly wrong! :-DRob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131254699738111382005-11-05T21:24:00.000-08:002005-11-05T21:24:00.000-08:00Vernor Vinge depicted malevolent aliens manipulati...Vernor Vinge depicted malevolent aliens manipulating a bergeoning information society, to their advantage of course, in _A Deepness in the Sky_.<BR/><BR/>Vinge being who he is, of course, the villainous aliens were the humans, lurking in the L1 point of the sun-planet gravity field...<BR/><BR/>Vinge is another one whose books I re-read.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131251639936735852005-11-05T20:33:00.000-08:002005-11-05T20:33:00.000-08:00It's time to start writing fiction again DB . . . ...It's time to start writing fiction again DB . . . take out your hostility toward elves on the page! The sweetest revenge would be to show them to be utter feebs with good PR. Make magic real . . . but being good at it requires a personality disorder.<BR/><BR/>StefanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131246859340760592005-11-05T19:14:00.000-08:002005-11-05T19:14:00.000-08:00Thanks to tc and David Brin. I was fixin to rip i...Thanks to tc and David Brin. I was fixin to rip into Nicq and tell him to grow his punk ass up, but fortunately y'all pointed out that he was just having us on. Whew!daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131229955742468532005-11-05T14:32:00.000-08:002005-11-05T14:32:00.000-08:00Of COURSE Nicq was kidding! He wrote a satire of ...Of COURSE Nicq was kidding! He wrote a satire of one of the most insipid styles of anti-modernism... one that (I'm afraid) underlies a lot of dippy Marxism on the left of Randian libertarianism on the right.<BR/><BR/>Contempt for the masses is the "food" of dopey wannabes who dream that they would have been great, if only the rules of society were drastically simplified to allow those with inherent quality to rise to the top. True, Marxist dopes and Randian dopes define "quality" differently in the details. (The "revolutionary vanguard" vs the "creative elite"). But the psychological driver is the same.<BR/><BR/>What's wonderful and hilarious is that these are usually guys who have benefited profoundly from a gentle civilization that has succored and fed and clothed and educated and subsidized them... but alas, that society hasn't made them rich or put them in charge. <BR/><BR/>What betrayal!<BR/><BR/>In fact, they resent the very things that have prevented THEIR pallid, white, flabby, UNDER-menschen asses from being "food" for the real predators out there. Those with all the wealth and influence and connections and social skills and vicious amorality to make slaves of us all, if it weren't for a decent enlightenment civilization of accountability.<BR/><BR/>But, as I said before, romanticism doesnt' have to be logical. Its purpose is to howl and screech and throw a tantrum... or else to spread a balm, a wash of unsupported superiority over the neuroses and wounds that we all pick up, during long, pampered, modern lives. Neuroses that grownups learn to overcome. But the great thing about this culture is that it does NOT demand that we grow up!<BR/><BR/>Want to be Peter Pan? Want to wallow in resentment? It's a free country. Yes it is. So long as grown ups run it for you. Keeping the barbarians at bay.<BR/><BR/>The common fantasy offered by Orson Scott Card and JK Rowling and George Lucas is - "I might be a superbeing or wizard or jedi... and simply not know it yet! But when I get my powers, watch out you guys!" <BR/> I would sell more books if I pandered to this vile illusion. But I won't. I make that whole belief system the BAD side in THE POSTMAN. <BR/><BR/>SO thanks Nicq, for the satire. The philosophy you describe ruled every human culture except this one, across 4,000 years or much more. It's track record was yummy. Obviously far better than Accountability-Enlightenment has achieved in 1/20th of that time.<BR/><BR/>Oh! We rented BATMAN BEGINS last night. Yeow! It had flaws but the movie generally rocked, and even some of the flaws arose from good intentions, like the thoroughness with which they tried to make the Bat Cave, Bat Mobile, Unitlity Belt and flying cape all seem plausible.<BR/><BR/>Notice how the typical villains (mad scientist and mob boss) are augmented by the very same mystical eastern cult that is portrayed as sooooo sweet and good in so many romantic tales, like Star Wars? And though he is superior (without being an ubermensch), Bruce Wayne is nevertheless nothing without help from a normal cop, a scientist, a DA a butler and a kid.<BR/><BR/>There was a similar scene or two in that 2nd Spiderman movie. Remember the people aboard the train, after he saves them from Doc Oc... how THEY then save HIM? They fight for him, not once but twice in the film. And they never reveal his identity. <BR/><BR/>I haven't seen a movie lately that better typifies the mythic tradition we all have to fight for.<BR/><BR/>Heroes are fine. SUPERIOR heroes are fine. But when they start treating my kids as "food" they will find out why Ben Franklin and George Marshall won every single battle they ever fought.<BR/><BR/>REAL heroes.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1131216543175590432005-11-05T10:49:00.000-08:002005-11-05T10:49:00.000-08:00Nicq MacDonald, I can't help but wonder if your po...Nicq MacDonald, I can't help but wonder if your post is an attempt at black humor? And maybe I'm just not getting it?<BR/><BR/><I>Why not have contempt for "normal life"- AKA, the mediocre life of people who seem to be fit only to produce, reproduce, and die? Is this all there is? A few years, then oblivion? Boring suburb-life? Staring at a screen all day to be able to buy junk we don't need?</I><BR/><BR/>I think it's a good idea if folks individually decide what's best for them, don't you? The "reproduce" piece -- I take it you're suggesting these individuals don't raise their children? Don’t educate them in their civilization and customs? Turn their creativity loose on the world? Are you honestly suggesting that raising a family is without worth? <BR/><BR/>If you don’t think so, that’s cool – don’t have kids. What concerns me is the implication that your dislike should become a prohibition against others liking it. That seems strange to me. <BR/><BR/>Heck, if someone just wants to get through life, watching TV, holding a low-paying job, and being a consumer, why should I a) have any opinion of it if they don't ask me and b) want to change about it? My life has enough challenges as is; I don't really have time to take on the cares and judgments of someone else's life.<BR/><BR/><I>Bah. I'll take anything over this. Fascism is beginning to sound pretty nice- as long as I'm one of the people in charge. I recently re-read 1984- as a utopia. Read it from the point of view of O'Brien, a member of the inner party... utterly drunk on power, able to use useless putzes like Winston Smith as toys... and it begins to sound very, very appealing.</I><BR/><BR/>What if I don't want you in charge? What if, in my judgment, my standards for a worthwhile life are different from yours? What if I don't believe that using others is "appealing" -- that I'd rather nurture the intellect and creativity of those around me for the betterment of humanity? Would that mean you'd just kill me -- if you could? Or die in the attempt?<BR/><BR/><I>You see, most of humanity, I'm beginning to realize, only has worth as food for great men; without them, they are nothing. Forgotten a few years after their death, lost to the abyss. Who cares about the dross of the world? All that democracy has done is put the mediocre of the world in charge and made the petty and bourgeoise into the standard.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, this is where I really think you're just joking. Holy shades of “A Modest Proposal!” First, what about great women? Why just great men? Sexism is soooo 1900s.<BR/><BR/>Is being remembered really that important? What if my life positively influences 10 other people who go on to discover zero point energy, or discover a cure for power addiction? I'd say that's a good life, though my name be lost in obscurity. Who cares who gets the credit? The achievement is what's important. <BR/><BR/>Since you mentioned the “bourgeoisie”, does that suggest you think the proletariat should be in charge? Or is that a red herring? <BR/><BR/><I>Screw modernism. Modernism is a dead end that destroys all greatness. I tried to embrace it for awhile, but I'm done with that. Being a psychopath is much more fun.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, you're absolutely joking now. Psychopathic behavior is not sustainable over time. Any civilization of any complexity needs cooperative behaviors, and psychopathic behaviors tend not to encourage cooperation. Coercion can work for a while, but history suggests it builds aggression and antipathy to the point of social explosion. The psychopaths in charge are usually the first to go. <BR/><BR/>Modernism is the best way I can think of (so far) to achieve sustainable greatness as an individual or civilization. It's a great protection about psychopaths getting into power. You suggest that modernism has resulted in the mediocre getting into power – I don’t think so. I think it's resulted (at least some cases) in those with psychopathic leanings getting into Washington D.C. where we can keep an eye on them and use the bureaucracy to keep their ambitions in check. <BR/><BR/>Really, I believe you were either joking or baiting. You’re replaying the conflict between the Albert’s green ditto and the realAlbert at the end of “Kiln People,” aren’t you? A regular guy’s intuition almost always beats a psychopath’s delusions! Isn’t that one of the points of modernism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com