{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4354", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4354, "subject": "5HC : Skinner, Turing", "messages": 187, "voices": 23, "first": "2005-02-03T07:08:11+00:00", "last": "2005-04-10T02:08:33+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<20050203150802.19305.qmail@web25707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jim Raylor", "address": "rjraylor at yahoo.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-03T07:08:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There seems to be an allusion on these threads that\nB.F.Skinner may bear some similarity to the father of\nNumber Five in 5HC. \n\nAs a first year Psychology student at Exeter\nUniversity in the 1970's I was a rampant\nanti-behaviourist, based on commonly held\nmisconceptions, some of which have been aired here.\nBy my third year, my views had changed, helped by a\nseries of tutorials with Professor Reid, the Head of\nDepartment, a keen behaviourist who was personally\nacquainted with Skinner.\nWilliam James focus on Psychology as the study of\nhuman consciousness had some unfortunate consequences.\nSoon Freud, Jung et al. had created rich and exotic\ntopologies of the human mind, though differences of\nopinion were evident and apparently irresolvable.\nIs a pipe a male or female symbol?\nPioneers of behaviourism such as Watson and Pavlov\nwere attempting to put psychology onto a more\nscientific focus, by concentrating on observable\nbehaviour and repeatable experiments.\nSkinner's experiments were generally far more humane\nthan those of the neurologists who sacrificed their\nsubjects to measure changes of state in their brains.\nPossibly his greatest contribution to humanity is his\ndemonstration that rewards are for more effective in\nconditioning behaviour than punishments.\nI am not saying he was a saint. For example, during\nthe war he advocated the use of trained pigeons to\nguide missiles, perhaps though this is preferable to\nthe use of Kamikaze pilots. \nHe did create an artificially enhanced environment for\nhis second daughter and spent considerable time\nobserving and influencing her behaviour, which I see\nas nothing more sinister than the actions of a devoted\nparent. By all accounts she is a successful and well\nadjusted academic who continues to support her\nfather's ideas. At university, the rumour was that she\nhad gone mad after being treated as an experimental\nsubject by her wicked father and was hospitalised!\nSkinner did not entirely deny the relevance of\ninternal states (is the pigeon hungry?), but found\nobjective work-arounds in most cases (Take a pigeon at\n95% of its previously established normal body weight).\n\nTuring's approach also focused on observable inputs\nand outputs, though he had a more mathematical and\nabstract notion of internal state than was formerly\navailable.\n\nFor what it is worth, I do find the apparent\nreferences to these individuals in 5HC to be more than\ncoincidence.\n\n\n=====\nhttp://prisoner143.50megs.com/\n\nI am not a number I am a free person!\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-03T10:12:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "<20050203150802.19305.qmail@web25707.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Jim Raylor " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Pioneers of behaviourism such as Watson and Pavlov\nwere attempting to put psychology onto a more\nscientific focus, by concentrating on observable\nbehaviour and repeatable experiments." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which was a worthy and probably necessary thing to do, given the excesses of \ntheir predecessors. One does get the impression that the pendulum _did_ \nswing too far the other way, though. I'm not entirely certain that the \ncriteria for objectivity used in natural sciences are entirely appropriate \nfor psychology, while that type of criterion was what the behaviourists \ntried to impose (not that _anything_ goes, it's just that the study of \nhumans and animals and AIs may require different methodologies with \ndifferent criteria from the study of say, quarks). But you have to start \nsomewhere, learn from your mistakes etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Skinner's experiments were generally far more humane\nthan those of the neurologists who sacrificed their\nsubjects to measure changes of state in their brains.\nPossibly his greatest contribution to humanity is his\ndemonstration that rewards are for more effective in\nconditioning behaviour than punishments.\nI am not saying he was a saint. For example, during\nthe war he advocated the use of trained pigeons to\nguide missiles, perhaps though this is preferable to\nthe use of Kamikaze pilots." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure that I'd like to live in his ideal society though." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He did create an artificially enhanced environment for\nhis second daughter and spent considerable time\nobserving and influencing her behaviour, which I see\nas nothing more sinister than the actions of a devoted\nparent. By all accounts she is a successful and well\nadjusted academic who continues to support her\nfather's ideas. At university, the rumour was that she\nhad gone mad after being treated as an experimental\nsubject by her wicked father and was hospitalised!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah! I thought that it might have been an exaggeration. On the other hand, \nwhat I've read of Watson's 1930 child rearing handbooks probably contributed \nto this impression; by all accounts they were rather... peculiar, and \nprobably didn't do kids raised by their principles much good." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Skinner did not entirely deny the relevance of\ninternal states (is the pigeon hungry?), but found\nobjective work-arounds in most cases (Take a pigeon at\n95% of its previously established normal body weight)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I guess he'd have to, given the limits of language observed in \nbehaviourism[1], but I suspect that there's an implicit connection between \ninternal and external states that that manouver exploits." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Turing's approach also focused on observable inputs\nand outputs, though he had a more mathematical and\nabstract notion of internal state than was formerly\navailable." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is that what's called fuctionalism? (Just to get terminology clear).\n\nI'll elaborate on something I said earlier. What seems to have happened \nwith behaviourism is analagous to what seems to have happened with the \nCopenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You have a fairly well \ndefined _operational_ definition of what you're looking for (behaviour in \npsychology, particle spin - for example - in QM) and a good idea of the \nbasic philosophy behind what you're doing and its limits. Your students, \nhowever, aren't so careful. Neither are the popularisers of your ideas (who \nmay or may not be identical with you), largely because they're writing what \namounts to a polemic. At some point, the operational definition becomes an \n_ontological_ one, and then you get crass behaviorism (version [2]) and bad \npop-sci nonsense on state-vector reduction.\n\nI tend to automatically assume (knee-jerk prejudice) that most behaviorists \nare crass, as opposed to thoughtful (type [1]) because I'm a massive \nintellectual snob. Oh well." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For what it is worth, I do find the apparent\nreferences to these individuals in 5HC to be more than\ncoincidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It hadn't occured to me, but there might be something in that. I do tend to \nthink that he was more of the cold, rational and amoral scientist archetype \n[1] rather than a depiction of anyone in particular though.\n\n[1] I won't say steriotype as there may have been one or two of this kind \nlurking around the more unpleasant reaches of 20th century research, eg. \nthose motherhood experiments with monkeys, etc. And then there's Edward \nTeller for us physicists.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705020310562d45183a@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-03T10:56:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well ... Of course the \"hard\" sciences set the gold standard for \n\"sexy science\" in the 20th century (especially the middle part of\nit) - both because they were as \"scientific\" (i.e., measurable, empirical,\nrepeatable, etc.) as you can get, and also because they produced\nbig, obvious results like A- and H-bombs, reactors, Saturn V-1Bs,\nall sorts of useful chemicals, and, oh, yeah, computers.\n\nLots of fields of endeavor then tried to be \"more like\" the hard \nsciences. Behaviorism was psychology's move toward \"scientificity\" \nby not merely concentrating on the empirical, but ignoring just\nabout anything else.\n\nFor what it's worth, there's a lot of interesting work going on \nright now that is putting some of the \"human sciences\" on what \nI would call a genuinely and appropriately scientific basis. In \npsychology, for example, you have the whole \"evolutionary \npsychology\" movement, which is producing some pretty \nstunning results in terms of explaining \"why we are the way we \nare,\" and a lot of it looks to be apply-able, for purposes of \ncreating more human(e) \"behavioral technologies\" than the \nSkinnerians ever could have done.\n\nBut my favorite example right now is Jared Diamond's amazing\nbook, GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL, which I think may do for\ncultural anthropology what Darwin did for biology.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-03T12:42:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation in the least bit: anything\nwhich requires you get rid of elegance like unitary wave evolution,\naccept things which are completely muddled and really, metaphysical,\nand introduces a bunch of paradoxes like Von Neumann's Catastrophe, or\nWigener's Friend, is a bad thing in my book.\nWe need a better solution, in QM as well as psychology. WIth QM\nyou've got multiverse models you can switch to, but what alternatives\ndo we have in psychology and philosophy?\n\n~Maru\nMicrosoft delenda est.\n\nOn Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:11:01 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:\n...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll elaborate on something I said earlier. What seems to have happened\nwith behaviourism is analagous to what seems to have happened with the\nCopenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. You have a fairly well\ndefined _operational_ definition of what you're looking for (behaviour in\npsychology, particle spin - for example - in QM) and a good idea of the\nbasic philosophy behind what you're doing and its limits. Your students,\nhowever, aren't so careful. Neither are the popularisers of your ideas (who\nmay or may not be identical with you), largely because they're writing what\namounts to a polemic. At some point, the operational definition becomes an\n_ontological_ one, and then you get crass behaviorism (version [2]) and bad\npop-sci nonsense on state-vector reduction.\n\nI tend to automatically assume (knee-jerk prejudice) that most behaviorists\nare crass, as opposed to thoughtful (type [1]) because I'm a massive\nintellectual snob. Oh well." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For what it is worth, I do find the apparent\nreferences to these individuals in 5HC to be more than\ncoincidence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It hadn't occured to me, but there might be something in that. I do tend to\nthink that he was more of the cold, rational and amoral scientist archetype\n[1] rather than a depiction of anyone in particular though.\n\n[1] I won't say steriotype as there may have been one or two of this kind\nlurking around the more unpleasant reaches of 20th century research, eg.\nthose motherhood experiments with monkeys, etc. And then there's Edward\nTeller for us physicists.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-03T13:34:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation in the least bit: " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nor do I " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "WIth QM\nyou've got multiverse models you can switch to, but what alternatives\ndo we have in psychology and philosophy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nSkinner's work pretty much comprised insisting that behaviour was mostly \nenvironment driven **or could only usefully be understood as such** and \nstudying how this worked out. \n\nI am sure Skinner knew this was untrue: but he attempted to ignore that \nfact, perhaps because nothing can be found out without making wild guesses \nand testing them (a true and noble attitude). \n\nHowever, the basic model is not simply wrong; it is so completely wrong that \neven as a wild and brave guess it is worse than useless. \n\nHuman behaviour is so much more circumscribed and programmed (by evolution) \nthan learned that the \"blank slate\" dogma is much, much, worse than useless. \nSince the basic model is wrong, Skinner's work can not be use to understand \nhumanity. \n\nWe are chattering about science, and forgetting what is really important in \nunderstanding the human world (even the world of humans in books), which is \npolitics. \n\nThe real emergent utility of Skinner's work - the way it was **used** in the \nreal world - iwas to provide a shield of intellectual justification to those \nwho want to reshape human behaviour through social engineering; which aim \nis, itself, merely a cloak over their own Inner Party desire for power. \n\n \n\nI'm not sure Skinner was guilty of intending this end (I doubt it), but his \nwork fitted perfectly into the environmentalist dogmas of his age, like the \nfraudulent \"anthropology\" of Margaret Mead and her mentor Franz Boaz. \n\nWolfe sets his face like granite against this slavery, in book after book. \n\n\n. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-03T16:53:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Doesn't behaivour, and epiphenomenon arising from mechanisms\nresponsible for behaivour *have* to be enviromentally driven? \nAnything else would have elements of randomness in it (with respect to\nenivromental concerns; other behaivour driven by things other than\nepiphenomenon or alternative, not enviromentally driven motives might\nmake perfect sense in its own scheme, but still at least somewhat\nrandom from the enviromental point of view.) and so would selected\nagainst evolutionarily, and by now, non-existent." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThis really doesn't mean any thing I can understand. \n\n \n\n\nHow is it we are talking about Wolfe and Skinner without mentioning \"The \nDeath od Doctor Island\", his most obviously anti-Skinnerian story? " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-03T16:54:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "~Maru\nI'd say that The Death of Doctor Island was pretty Skinnerian- the\ntrio got massivly manipulated, Doctor Island controlled the enviroment\nabsolutely, and he got one of two planned, predicted outcomes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nNot at all. Doctor Island is indeed a nearly omnipotent Skinnerian \nconditioning machine, but he is not merely evil, but - more importantly - in \nerror. \n\nHe works on an estimate of the boy's IQ (and consequentially his economic \nvalue) which is fake, having been made up by a nurse when the boy refused to \ntake a test. \n\nRead the story \n\n\nTDODI is an example of something seen frequently in Wolfe's writing. You \nhave \"undomesticated\" human beings who can not fit into a society and are \nterribly punished for it (punishment being another form of skinnerian \nOperant Conditioning, of course). \n\nBut the reason why they can not fit in, not because they are sick, but \nbecause the are sane, and the society does not allow healthy human beings to \nsurvive in it. \n\n.. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-03T16:54:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\n\nMaru Dubshinki writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In error? You think Dr. Island would resort to a different strategy\nfor the boy if his IQ had been accurately recorded? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dr Island says as much to Nicholas. I'm looking at page 106 of the Pocket \nBooks edition. Sorry, I am too busy to transcribe it " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T05:39:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Maru Dubshinki \n\nI don't like the Copenhagen interpretation in the least bit: anything\nwhich requires you get rid of elegance like unitary wave evolution,\naccept things which are completely muddled and really, metaphysical,\nand introduces a bunch of paradoxes like Von Neumann's Catastrophe, or\nWigener's Friend, is a bad thing in my book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, but the Copenhagen interpretation isn't metaphysical - not in its \noriginal form. All it involves is acceptance of the fact that QM provides a \ndescription of the probabilities of events and no description of what's \nreally happening because there's no way we can access that level. The \ntrouble is that that is somewhat unsatisfactory, so people badly staple the \nmetaphysics to a framework that isn't really intended to support it, and as \na result you get wierdness like John Wheeler's 'participatory Anthropic \nPrinciple'.\n\nThe modern equivalent of the original Copenhagen interpretation is Chris \nFuch et al's Baysian subjectivist interpretation, which I think has quite a \nbit going for it, though I'm not entirely convinced." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We need a better solution, in QM as well as psychology. WIth QM\nyou've got multiverse models you can switch to, but what alternatives\ndo we have in psychology and philosophy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Myself, I tend to regard the multiverse interpretation as slightly \nextravagant (and there are some technical problems with it and the related \n'consistent histories' approach). I tend to prefer (in no real order, but \nthe least deterministic ones are more favoured at the moment) Penrose's \nobjective reduction (which needs work), the Baysian approach (a bit \nconservative), Cramer's transactional account (which does peculiar things to \ntime) and non-local hidden variables (a touch deterministic).\n\nI guess that the solution to a lot of these problems is to be very clear \nabout what you're doing, the tentativeness of your conclusions and to shoot \noverenthusiastic pop-sci authors on sight [1], because they'll only add to \nthe confusion.\n\nIorwerth\n\n[1] Apologies to any popular science authors reading this. But there is a \ntendancy within the genre (particularly in physical and biological pop-sci) \nto latch onto eye catching ideas that are probably bollocks. There are \nexceptions to this rule. Roger Penrose, for example is always careful to \nstate when he's being speculative." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T06:02:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705020310562d45183a@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For what it's worth, there's a lot of interesting work going on\nright now that is putting some of the \"human sciences\" on what\nI would call a genuinely and appropriately scientific basis. In\npsychology, for example, you have the whole \"evolutionary\npsychology\" movement, which is producing some pretty\nstunning results in terms of explaining \"why we are the way we\nare,\" and a lot of it looks to be apply-able, for purposes of\ncreating more human(e) \"behavioral technologies\" than the\nSkinnerians ever could have done." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah. Of course, with most stuff like this, you have to be careful with how \nyou proceed; evolutionary psychology got a very bad name when it started up \ndue to the flagrant crassness of some of its backers (a good history of this \nis Andrew Brown's 'The Darwin Wars'). Things have apparently improved, \nthough on the origins of ideas that some evolutionary psychologists don't \napprove of (say, religion) things don't appear to have moved much beyond \nFreud (this is less an attack on the scientific study of religions, how they \nform, develop and what this has to say about us as a spiecies - which is \nwholly worthwhile - and more a statement that a lot of these commentators \ndon't actually know what they're talking about).\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T06:28:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Andy Robertson\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Doesn't behaivour, and epiphenomenon arising from mechanisms\nresponsible for behaivour *have* to be enviromentally driven? Anything \nelse would have elements of randomness in it (with respect to\nenivromental concerns; other behaivour driven by things other than\nepiphenomenon or alternative, not enviromentally driven motives might\nmake perfect sense in its own scheme, but still at least somewhat\nrandom from the enviromental point of view.) and so would selected\nagainst evolutionarily, and by now, non-existent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This really doesn't mean any thing I can understand." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It sounds like version of Hume's fork (either my actions are determined [by \nthe laws of physics, or in this case, the environment] or not; if they \naren't, they are random, which is false; therefore they are determined) with \nan adaptionist sting in its tail. The problems with this version are:\n\n1) Why are random events (wrt the environment) selected against? There are \nsituations where being unpredictable is an advantage (an example from human \nsociety that could be generalised are some forms of Cold War nuclear \nstrategy).\n\n2) It assumes that evolutionary selection is a fine mesh, not a coarse one \n(it probably varies between the two extremes depending on the \ncircumstances). If something doesn't provide a significant advantage or \ndisadvantage _when all circumstances are taken into account_ (say, \ncompensating factors, low selection pressure and so forth) then it may be \npassed on to the successive generation regardless.\n\n3) What, exactly, do we mean by 'environment'? It's a lot less obvious than \nit seems.\n\nHence, it is possible that non-environmental (for some value of environment) \ninfluences on behaviour exist.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T06:58:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Andy Robertson\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We are chattering about science, and forgetting what is really important in \nunderstanding the human world (even the world of humans in books), which is \npolitics.\n\nThe real emergent utility of Skinner's work - the way it was **used** in \nthe real world - iwas to provide a shield of intellectual justification to \nthose who want to reshape human behaviour through social engineering; which \naim is, itself, merely a cloak over their own Inner Party desire for power." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh God, the justification of dubious politics by attatching the word \n'scientific' to it. The same happened with Darwinism - Herbet Spencer and \nthe 'scientific' Social Darwinists. Yes, I can see why some would find it \nuseful. You'd be referring to certain Marxists, right?\n\nIt's probably not a coincidence that the conspiracy in Grant Morrison's \n'Invisibles' sometimes slip into behaviourist-type rhetoric." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure Skinner was guilty of intending this end (I doubt it), but his \nwork fitted perfectly into the environmentalist dogmas of his age, like the \nfraudulent \"anthropology\" of Margaret Mead and her mentor Franz Boaz." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of the best critiques of environmentalist 'blank-slate' dogma, IMO, is \nprobably 'Beast and Man' by Mary Midgley, herself a left-wing moral \nphilosopher. But she's a virtue ethicist, and thus can't believe the 'blank \nslate' stuff on pain of self contradiction." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wolfe sets his face like granite against this slavery, in book after book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And rightly so. It's one of the few political views I share in common with \nhim.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T16:57:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "!!\nWhy is it every philosphical idea I think is amazingly clever turns\nout to have been stolen from me by some long dead philosopher?! \n\"Hume's fork\" ? Dammit!\nWell, I hope I at least get credit for the adaptationist addition.\nTime to dispose of your arguments:\nRandomness in nature is bad for obvious reasons. If any time I meet a\ndreaded lion or hippo (let's pretend I am a human pre-cursor living in\nAfrica) I have a random chance of either a) fleeing in abject terror,\nwetting my pants, and the next time I go to that place I am\nextra-cautious or\nb) walking up to said dangerous, unfriendly creature and poking him in\nthe snout. Or some other random action which doesn't involve\nkilling/fleeing the creature. It's equally obvious, I hope, that the\nset of actions which will preserve my life is shrinkingly smaller than\nthe set of all possible actions.\n So, random actions would be selected against, and actions with sense,\nwhich are non-random (ie, presented with an identical situation, the\nactions will not be utterly chaotic when iterated. If a creature is\nhungry and good food is near by, we should see it the majority of\ntimes engaging in the highly ordered, non-random sequence of going to\nit, checking it out, checking out teh surroudnings, eating it etc.)\nand fairly deterministic would selected for.\nYour analogy with WWII nuclear strategies is not really relevant. It\nwas an attempt to manipulate an opponents game-theoretic optimum\nstrategy. The one acting 'crazy'/'random' was anything but.\nAnd your second thing?\nEvolution is *very* fine-meshed. The slightest advantage, compounded\nlike interest over thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of\nmillions etc will win out.\nIf you wish to argue that 'non-enviromental' influence exist, please\nprovide an example, any example.\nFor my purposes, 'enviroment' is anything which affects an organism's\nchances of living or reproducing. This keeps everything nice and neat\nand evolutionary :)\n\n~Maru\nI once wrote up a weak version of 'Hume's fork' as a fancomic for DC.\nThis is just to show I did think of it a while back. Too bad I can't\nprove I never read Hume or anything about him. Oh well.\nhttp://www.qwantz.com/fanart/qwantz-IhadnochoiceImsorry.png" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:27:33 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:\nIt sounds like version of Hume's fork (either my actions are determined [by\nthe laws of physics, or in this case, the environment] or not; if they\naren't, they are random, which is false; therefore they are determined) with\nan adaptionist sting in its tail. The problems with this version are:\n\n1) Why are random events (wrt the environment) selected against? There are\nsituations where being unpredictable is an advantage (an example from human\nsociety that could be generalised are some forms of Cold War nuclear\nstrategy).\n\n2) It assumes that evolutionary selection is a fine mesh, not a coarse one\n(it probably varies between the two extremes depending on the\ncircumstances). If something doesn't provide a significant advantage or\ndisadvantage _when all circumstances are taken into account_ (say,\ncompensating factors, low selection pressure and so forth) then it may be\npassed on to the successive generation regardless.\n\n3) What, exactly, do we mean by 'environment'? It's a lot less obvious than\nit seems.\n\nHence, it is possible that non-environmental (for some value of environment)\ninfluences on behaviour exist.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-04T18:56:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am not sure where Hume's fork comes into play here. The fork, as I \nunderstand it, isn't about determinism or randomness. It's a division of \ntypes of statements as either analytic (strict products of definitions and \nlogical operations) or synthetic (products of empirical observation, \nstatements about the world). Some people think this distinction is more \nimportant than others; Quine, for example, argued that there was really no \nsuch thing as an analytic statement in (natural) language.\n\nAs far as determinism, randomness, and evolution go: if you take an ideal \ncoin with zero thickness (so that it can't land on an edge), is it a \ndetermined system (because there are a fixed set of ways it could possibly \ncome down: heads or tails) or is it random (because on any given toss it \ncould come down either way)? The answer to the question is \"yes\". As a poor \npseudo-evolutionary example, let's use the game of chess (pre-computer). If \nyou take a set of players, then a guy who always starts with the Queen's \nGambit will do more poorly than one who chooses from a range of similarly \ndecent openings, because his opponent will key in on the Queen's Gambit when \npreparing for the game. The second person does choose their opening \nrandomly, but not just any random opening move will do - the random \nselection is made from a set of viable choices, some of which may be \nslightly worse than others but gain a little something back by way of \nunexpectedness. Does chess, then, select for randomness or not?\n\nre: the nuclear example, it is not so much a matter of randomness that is \nselected for, but it does show that sometimes non-prudential \nstrategies/traits *are* selected for. That is, prudential in the sense of \nimmediate gain. Nuclear weapons fail to act as a deterrent if your opponent \nknows that you won't use them against your own best interest. Similarly and \nmore to the point with a (normal) bee's sting." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "!!\nWhy is it every philosphical idea I think is amazingly clever turns\nout to have been stolen from me by some long dead philosopher?!\n\"Hume's fork\" ? Dammit!\nWell, I hope I at least get credit for the adaptationist addition.\nTime to dispose of your arguments:\nRandomness in nature is bad for obvious reasons. If any time I meet a\ndreaded lion or hippo (let's pretend I am a human pre-cursor living in\nAfrica) I have a random chance of either a) fleeing in abject terror,\nwetting my pants, and the next time I go to that place I am\nextra-cautious or\nb) walking up to said dangerous, unfriendly creature and poking him in\nthe snout. Or some other random action which doesn't involve\nkilling/fleeing the creature. It's equally obvious, I hope, that the\nset of actions which will preserve my life is shrinkingly smaller than\nthe set of all possible actions.\n So, random actions would be selected against, and actions with sense,\nwhich are non-random (ie, presented with an identical situation, the\nactions will not be utterly chaotic when iterated. If a creature is\nhungry and good food is near by, we should see it the majority of\ntimes engaging in the highly ordered, non-random sequence of going to\nit, checking it out, checking out teh surroudnings, eating it etc.)\nand fairly deterministic would selected for.\nYour analogy with WWII nuclear strategies is not really relevant. It\nwas an attempt to manipulate an opponents game-theoretic optimum\nstrategy. The one acting 'crazy'/'random' was anything but.\nAnd your second thing?\nEvolution is *very* fine-meshed. The slightest advantage, compounded\nlike interest over thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of\nmillions etc will win out.\nIf you wish to argue that 'non-enviromental' influence exist, please\nprovide an example, any example.\nFor my purposes, 'enviroment' is anything which affects an organism's\nchances of living or reproducing. This keeps everything nice and neat\nand evolutionary :)\n\n~Maru\nI once wrote up a weak version of 'Hume's fork' as a fancomic for DC.\nThis is just to show I did think of it a while back. Too bad I can't\nprove I never read Hume or anything about him. Oh well.\nhttp://www.qwantz.com/fanart/qwantz-IhadnochoiceImsorry.png\n\nOn Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:27:33 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It sounds like version of Hume's fork (either my actions are determined \n[by\nthe laws of physics, or in this case, the environment] or not; if they\naren't, they are random, which is false; therefore they are determined) " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "with\nan adaptionist sting in its tail. The problems with this version are:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "1) Why are random events (wrt the environment) selected against? There \nare\nsituations where being unpredictable is an advantage (an example from \nhuman\nsociety that could be generalised are some forms of Cold War nuclear\nstrategy).\n\n2) It assumes that evolutionary selection is a fine mesh, not a coarse \none\n(it probably varies between the two extremes depending on the\ncircumstances). If something doesn't provide a significant advantage or\ndisadvantage _when all circumstances are taken into account_ (say,\ncompensating factors, low selection pressure and so forth) then it may \nbe\npassed on to the successive generation regardless.\n\n3) What, exactly, do we mean by 'environment'? It's a lot less obvious \nthan\nit seems.\n\nHence, it is possible that non-environmental (for some value of \nenvironment)\ninfluences on behaviour exist.\n\nIorwerth\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-07T05:22:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Maru Dubshinki " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "!!\nWhy is it every philosphical idea I think is amazingly clever turns\nout to have been stolen from me by some long dead philosopher?!\n\"Hume's fork\" ? Dammit!\nWell, I hope I at least get credit for the adaptationist addition.\nTime to dispose of your arguments:\nRandomness in nature is bad for obvious reasons. If any time I meet a\ndreaded lion or hippo (let's pretend I am a human pre-cursor living in\nAfrica) I have a random chance of either a) fleeing in abject terror,\nwetting my pants, and the next time I go to that place I am\nextra-cautious or\nb) walking up to said dangerous, unfriendly creature and poking him in\nthe snout. Or some other random action which doesn't involve\nkilling/fleeing the creature. It's equally obvious, I hope, that the\nset of actions which will preserve my life is shrinkingly smaller than\nthe set of all possible actions.\n So, random actions would be selected against, and actions with sense,\nwhich are non-random (ie, presented with an identical situation, the\nactions will not be utterly chaotic when iterated. If a creature is\nhungry and good food is near by, we should see it the majority of\ntimes engaging in the highly ordered, non-random sequence of going to\nit, checking it out, checking out teh surroudnings, eating it etc.)\nand fairly deterministic would selected for." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oops. My bad. I misconstrued you. I thought you were arguing that \nenvironment _alone_ rather than 'environment plus internal state' were \ndetermining factors for behaviour. An action might be 'random' in the first \nsense but it wouldn't be in the second (though it might be free but not \nrandom, if you reject Hume's eating implement). Sorry about that (esp. as \nthe first view is so silly that I'd hate to ascribe it to anyone)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Your analogy with WWII nuclear strategies is not really relevant. It\nwas an attempt to manipulate an opponents game-theoretic optimum\nstrategy. The one acting 'crazy'/'random' was anything but." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hope my remark makes sense now." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And your second thing?\nEvolution is *very* fine-meshed. The slightest advantage, compounded\nlike interest over thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of\nmillions etc will win out.\nIf you wish to argue that 'non-enviromental' influence exist, please\nprovide an example, any example." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(Caveat: I'm no biologist, and I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong on \nthis) I imagine that there's a significant difference between the harshness \nof the selection of hairless tropical apes during a time of relative calm \n(when genetic drift will predominate) and the onset of an ice age. Also, if \na circumstance comes up rarely enough that, say, only one or two individuals \nare ever affected, it might not really impinge on an spiecies' history. It \nmight prove hard to predict the rection (though I'd have to be something \n_very_ odd not to invoke a flight or fight behaviour)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For my purposes, 'enviroment' is anything which affects an organism's\nchances of living or reproducing. This keeps everything nice and neat\nand evolutionary :)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ok, I think I have a criterion for a 'non-environmental' [1] influence. \nSomething which has not, up until this point, had a significant influence on \nthe organism's chance of living or reproducing. Good enough for ya? :)\n\nIorwerth\n\n\n[1] Ok, it's not really. But it's not environmental in the sense of the \nword you're using, if you see what I mean." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-07T05:30:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Chris\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I am not sure where Hume's fork comes into play here. The fork, as I \nunderstand it, isn't about determinism or randomness. It's a division of \ntypes of statements as either analytic (strict products of definitions and \nlogical operations) or synthetic (products of empirical observation, \nstatements about the world). Some people think this distinction is more \nimportant than others; Quine, for example, argued that there was really no \nsuch thing as an analytic statement in (natural) language." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Curses. My memory is as bad as ever. I'm sure I have seen it called that \nsomewhere. But you're probably right. It is an argument I've seen \nattributed to Hume, though.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00f601c50d25$0b3faa80$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-07T06:55:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I am not sure where Hume's fork comes into play here. The fork, as I\nunderstand it, isn't about determinism or randomness." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Curses. My memory is as bad as ever. I'm sure I have seen it called that\nsomewhere. But you're probably right. It is an argument I've seen\nattributed to Hume, though." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmmm...seems like a pretty cynical philosophy. It works for all the choices\npeople never have to make and begins to teeter when we consider all the ones\nthey do. How does it explain why people cheat on their spouses? How does it\nexplain why they don't? How does it explain heroism and cowardice?\nGenerosity and greed? Honesty and duplicity? How about twelve-step programs?\nHow does it explain listening to free-form jazz?\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-07T10:47:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<00f601c50d25$0b3faa80$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hume was actually a compatibilist, and believed in both free will and \ndeterminism. You really do choose whether or not to cheat on your spouse \n(and are thus responsible for that choice), but that choice is determined by \nyour belief, character, and desires (which are in turn determined by other \nthings). The freedom comes into play because, he says, if you *did* have \ndifferent beliefs or desires you *could* have chosen differently.\n\nI've never found this point of view to be particularly compelling, but \nperhaps there are people who could present it more convincingly.\n\nHume was, notoriously, stymied by the infamous Free Form Jazz Objection.\n\n-- Civet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmmm...seems like a pretty cynical philosophy. It works for all the choices\npeople never have to make and begins to teeter when we consider all the \nones\nthey do. How does it explain why people cheat on their spouses? How does it\nexplain why they don't? How does it explain heroism and cowardice?\nGenerosity and greed? Honesty and duplicity? How about twelve-step \nprograms?\nHow does it explain listening to free-form jazz?\n\n~ Crush\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<420805E5.7000104@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-07T16:20:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\n\nOops. My bad. I misconstrued you. I thought you were arguing that \nenvironment _alone_ rather than 'environment plus internal state' were \ndetermining factors for behaviour. An action might be 'random' in the \nfirst sense but it wouldn't be in the second (though it might be free \nbut not random, if you reject Hume's eating implement). Sorry about \nthat (esp. as the first view is so silly that I'd hate to ascribe it \nto anyone)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Your analogy with WWII nuclear strategies is not really relevant. It\nwas an attempt to manipulate an opponents game-theoretic optimum\nstrategy. The one acting 'crazy'/'random' was anything but." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I hope my remark makes sense now." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And your second thing?\nEvolution is *very* fine-meshed. The slightest advantage, compounded\nlike interest over thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of\nmillions etc will win out.\nIf you wish to argue that 'non-enviromental' influence exist, please\nprovide an example, any example." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Caveat: I'm no biologist, and I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong \non this) I imagine that there's a significant difference between the \nharshness of the selection of hairless tropical apes during a time of \nrelative calm (when genetic drift will predominate) and the onset of \nan ice age. Also, if a circumstance comes up rarely enough that, say, \nonly one or two individuals are ever affected, it might not really \nimpinge on an spiecies' history. It might prove hard to predict the \nrection (though I'd have to be something _very_ odd not to invoke a \nflight or fight behaviour)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For my purposes, 'enviroment' is anything which affects an organism's\nchances of living or reproducing. This keeps everything nice and neat\nand evolutionary :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ok, I think I have a criterion for a 'non-environmental' [1] \ninfluence. Something which has not, up until this point, had a \nsignificant influence on the organism's chance of living or \nreproducing. Good enough for ya? :)\n\nIorwerth\n\n\n[1] Ok, it's not really. But it's not environmental in the sense of \nthe word you're using, if you see what I mean." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd like to reply inter-linearly, but I haven't figured out how to make \nThunderbird do so. So I'll reply in order; I hope that works.\nI was arguing in essence that enviroment is first and foremost- internal \nstates are derived always from that. A thought-example. We live in a \nuniverse where basic laws of logic hold. I cannot set my internal \nstates (imagination and fantaszing really) to respond to the enviroment \nof a universe where, say, Modus Tollens did not hold. I just can't. I \ncan try to work it out, but it never really gels. It's like trying to \nexperience a 9 spatial dimension universe. We might work out the math \nof it, but our internal states will never reflect it, since they didn't \nevolve to do so. We might reflect the changes in our enviroment (our \ncalculations about the enviroment of a 9-d universe) but we will never \nget internal states directly corresponding.\n\nAnd of course selection pressures differ. That's why we can witness \nevolution, instead of always looking for indirect evidence.\n\nI'd like to hear a 'non-enviromental' influence. But of course, you must \nremember, the 'NE' influence must not fall under any of the general \nrules/heuristics evolution or culture (which derives from \nevolution-given abilities and evolutionary enviromental influences, \nremember.) have worked out. I suspect you will have trouble :)\n\n~Maru\nMicrosoft delenda est." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-08T04:40:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<420805E5.7000104@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd like to reply inter-linearly, but I haven't figured out how to make \nThunderbird do so. So I'll reply in order; I hope that works.\nI was arguing in essence that enviroment is first and foremost- internal \nstates are derived always from that. A thought-example. We live in a \nuniverse where basic laws of logic hold. I cannot set my internal states \n(imagination and fantaszing really) to respond to the enviroment of a \nuniverse where, say, Modus Tollens did not hold. I just can't. I can try to \nwork it out, but it never really gels." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it may be a bit more two way than that - in some ways, largly \nbecause there's a lot of contingency and flexibility in the way someone's \nbelief structure can be constructed, and the same event can be subject to \nquite a few interpretations, but when it comes down to the raw material of \nthese systems, you're probably right." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's like trying to experience a 9 spatial dimension universe. We might \nwork out the math of it, but our internal states will never reflect it, \nsince they didn't evolve to do so. We might reflect the changes in our \nenviroment (our calculations about the enviroment of a 9-d universe) but we \nwill never get internal states directly corresponding." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think there's a guy who's working on a program that helps people visualise \n4-d surfaces. But not 9-d... It can get quite tricky in 2-d as well. I \njust finished reading the chapter in Penrose's 'The Road to Reality' on \ngauge fibre bundles and I'm not sure my mind has quite survived the \nexperience." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And of course selection pressures differ. That's why we can witness \nevolution, instead of always looking for indirect evidence.\n\nI'd like to hear a 'non-enviromental' influence. But of course, you must \nremember, the 'NE' influence must not fall under any of the general \nrules/heuristics evolution or culture (which derives from evolution-given \nabilities and evolutionary enviromental influences, remember.) have worked \nout. I suspect you will have trouble :)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Arrgh. Sounds like a 'limits of thought' type problem (in order to think \nabout it we'd have to think what can't be thought, paraphrasing \nWittgenstein). This doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist - the main \ndifference between biology and physics (so I've heard) is that exceptions to \ngeneral rules are commomplace - but it does mean that I can't give an \nexample. I can wave my hands furiously and try and convince you that one \n_could_ exist, but you'd be rational in ignoring me. Oh well. :)\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42092C7E.9070903@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-08T13:18:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nIt's like trying to experience a 9 spatial dimension universe. We \nmight work out the math of it, but our internal states will never \nreflect it, since they didn't evolve to do so. We might reflect the \nchanges in our enviroment (our calculations about the enviroment of a \n9-d universe) but we will never get internal states directly \ncorresponding." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think there's a guy who's working on a program that helps people \nvisualise 4-d surfaces. But not 9-d... It can get quite tricky in \n2-d as well. I just finished reading the chapter in Penrose's 'The \nRoad to Reality' on gauge fibre bundles and I'm not sure my mind has \nquite survived the experience." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And of course selection pressures differ. That's why we can witness \nevolution, instead of always looking for indirect evidence.\n\nI'd like to hear a 'non-enviromental' influence. But of course, you \nmust remember, the 'NE' influence must not fall under any of the \ngeneral rules/heuristics evolution or culture (which derives from \nevolution-given abilities and evolutionary enviromental influences, \nremember.) have worked out. I suspect you will have trouble :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Arrgh. Sounds like a 'limits of thought' type problem (in order to \nthink about it we'd have to think what can't be thought, paraphrasing \nWittgenstein). This doesn't mean that such a thing can't exist - the \nmain difference between biology and physics (so I've heard) is that \nexceptions to general rules are commomplace - but it does mean that I \ncan't give an example. I can wave my hands furiously and try and \nconvince you that one _could_ exist, but you'd be rational in ignoring \nme. Oh well. :)\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, if 4-d things really interest you (and you run a *nix), the guy \nwho maintains www.urticator.net wrote a 4,3,2,1 -d maze, which you can \nexplore from a First Person perspective. It's really pretty cool, and \ngave me a wee bit of insight into multiple dimensions. Of course, all I \nhave are heuristics :)\nAnd I'd only be rational in ignoring if I was a good logical postivist \n(darnit, confirmation *can* too be support for a theory! We don't have \nto rely on just disproof.)\nBut I'd tend to agree with you about the 'limits of thought'- all our \nideas come from things-in-enviroment, through things-in-enviroment, and \nprocessed by things-in-enviroment and designed by that great, \noccaisionally short-sighted, blind watchmaker called evolution. It's \nnot surprising that we'd be blinkered.\nI don't like ending things with 'silence' to ref wittengenstein, so I'll \nadd a little poser:\nConsider that every situation can be broken down to a binary choice (you \nnever are forced to take three-at-a-time; this is possible, there are \nseveral election procedures which would work under such circumstances.) \nFurther consider that there is always a better choice, a choice that \nhowever infintesmially better it might fulfill your desires, is none the \nless at least a little better than the other, so you always can choose \nif you think about it. Another way of putting it is you are never in a \nstates of complete ignorance where you might as well flip a coin. Now, \nchoices are always made according to desires, and expectations about \nthose, whether those desires be apparently irrational or masochistic, \nthey are desires nonetheless. So in all these situations you break down \nyour choices to whatever of the two satisfies your desires best. Which \nmeans that your choice, to someone who knows you well enough (where \n'well enough' ranges from a good friend, to requiring a vast scientific \nenterprise's knowledge), are predictable. Which means you are \ndeterministic. But wait! What if you disagree? What if you think that we \ndon't always follow what we see as in the best interests of our desires? \nWell then, that means some of the time you will be choosing against \none's interests and desires, and by definition that's bad! So you are \nconfronted with a di-lemna: Either you are a slave to your desires, and \nfree will is an incoherent, but comforting illusion; or you are doomed \nto unhappiness, when you 'freely' choose against what really matters to \nyouy, what makes you happy.\nNice bilemna eh?\n\n~Maru\nhttp://www.qwantz.com/fanart/qwantz-IhadnochoiceImsorry.png" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705020814335dd7b0c5@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-08T14:33:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<42092C7E.9070903@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I'd only be rational in ignoring if I was a good logical postivist\n(darnit, confirmation *can* too be support for a theory! We don't have\nto rely on just disproof.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Mmmm. Yes and no. Support, yes. Not proof ... except ... Well, \nthere are real-world problems with limited domains, and in those\ndomains, you can sometimes demonstrate that only a certain\nnumber of possible _theories_ exist. But most such situations\nconcern theories-about-fact rather than theories-about-general-\nprinciples. \n\n(Ex: Three people are locked in a room. One is stabbed\nto death - several wounds. There are only seven possible \nanswers to the question \"whodunit?\") \n\nBut for more general (scientific) problems ... it seems to me that\ndisconfirmation is the best we can hope for, because there are\nalways more theories and, while we can generally rank them\nin loose probability-clusters,\n\n(Ex: How does gravitation work?\nHigh probability: gravitation is mediated by a particle exchange.\nLower probability: exchange of massive, charged particles.\nStill lower probability: exchange of protons.\nExtremely low probability: exchange of gumballs.\nVanishingly small probability: massive particles yearn for\n each other.)\n\nand in fact we _have_ to rank them this way, because otherwise\nthere's no way of deciding which theories are most worth testing.\n\n(Ex: We will probably never test the gumball theory, nor the\ntheory I've just invented, that gravitation is mediated by \ntiny alien elephants flying around in the noosphere, propagating \nmorphogenic resonance and administering random rectal\nprobes to isolated humans.)\n\nBut, alas, now and then theories that look like they should be\nranked very low turn out, with new experimental data, to be\nmuch more likely true than the ones in the former high \nprobability grouping. (Ex: the heliocentric theory. Evolution.\nQuantum decoherence - well, no, anyone with any common\nsense recognized the inherent rightness of that one \nimmediately...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Consider that every situation can be broken down to a binary choice " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suspect that this is true only of situations where you are faced\nwith countably finite numbers of possible choices...\n\nRegarding your \"bi-lemma\": It only works if you're reasonably\nconfident of your ability to choose the option that best matches\nyour desires. Some of us (me) often wind up like the famous\ndonkey that starved to death because he was equidistant from \ntwo equally tasty-looking piles of hay.\n\nThis example was originally cooked up to prove that animals \n_aren't_ automata, because this would never happen to any \n_real_ donkey. Which however suggests to me that the real \ndonkey is indeed the automaton, which evolution has \nthoughtfully provided with a nonalgorithmic solution to such\nsituations - \"pick one at random.\" Whereas we, nonautomata,\ncan dither forever.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-09T07:23:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<42092C7E.9070903@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru \n\nConsider that every situation can be broken down to a binary choice (you \nnever are forced to take three-at-a-time; this is possible, there are \nseveral election procedures which would work under such circumstances.) \nFurther consider that there is always a better choice, a choice that \nhowever infintesmially better it might fulfill your desires, is none the \nless at least a little better than the other, so you always can choose if \nyou think about it. Another way of putting it is you are never in a states \nof complete ignorance where you might as well flip a coin. Now, choices \nare always made according to desires, and expectations about those, whether \nthose desires be apparently irrational or masochistic, they are desires \nnonetheless. So in all these situations you break down your choices to \nwhatever of the two satisfies your desires best. Which means that your \nchoice, to someone who knows you well enough (where 'well enough' ranges \nfrom a good friend, to requiring a vast scientific enterprise's knowledge), \nare predictable. Which means you are deterministic. But wait! What if you \ndisagree? What if you think that we don't always follow what we see as in \nthe best interests of our desires? Well then, that means some of the time \nyou will be choosing against one's interests and desires, and by definition \nthat's bad! So you are confronted with a di-lemna: Either you are a slave \nto your desires, and free will is an incoherent, but comforting illusion; \nor you are doomed to unhappiness, when you 'freely' choose against what \nreally matters to youy, what makes you happy.\nNice bilemna eh?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Pretty good. Here's a possible counterexample (original to a Calvinist \ncognitive scientist by the name of Donald Mackie - or Mackay; I forget which \n- via John Barrow's nice little book 'Impossibility').\n\nLet's assume all of the above, plus the not unreasonable - given our present \nstate of knowledge - that these desires correlate with brain states. Let's \nalso (just for fun) assume that the laws of the universe are completely \ndeterministic - no quantum mechanics - and reductionist - all is controlled \nby the laws of physics with no emergence. None of these additional \nassumptions appear to be necessary for this argument, they merely point out \nhow strong it is.\n\nIn this hypothetical universe, I have indulged in a little black magic and \nconjured Laplace's Demon, the bodiless, ominescient intelligence which can \npredict the actions of everything in the universe. I have asked you what \nyou wish to have for lunch tomorrow. I am told that you will, given your \nbrain state now, have a cheese sandwich for lunch tomorrow.\n\nFine. If I wait and watch, I will see you eating a cheese sandwich \ntomorrow. But what if (loony sorcerer that I am) I _tell_ you what you are \ngoing to have to eat tomorrow as soon as I aquire the information?\n\nIt transpires that I change your brain state from a) not knowing what I was \ngoing to eat tomorrow to b)knowing what I am going to eat tomorrow. This \nthrows the prediction a little out of whack, so I rush back to my summoning \ncircle and ask the Demon for a new prediction concerning your actions given \nyour present brain state of b). Which he does.\n\nEnthused, I run back to you and tell you what you are going to eat tomorrow \nand thus change your brain stait to c) knowing what I'm going to eat \ntomorrow given I have brain state b). Which throws the prediction out of \nwhack, so I run back to the Demon and.... etc.\n\nI can't tell you what you're going to do (even if I have perfect knowledge \nof it) without no possibility of changing what you will do, which removes \nsome of the sting from physical determinism. Replace 'brain states' with \nthe 'my desires' and, assuming that you're responsive to the environment \nyour desires might well change when you're told what you're going to do \n(particularly if you tend to desire the frustration of arrogant black \nmagicians who wish to predict the future!).\n\nThere are almost certainly a lot of problems with this story, but I'm fond \nof it.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-09T07:31:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705020814335dd7b0c5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Ex: How does gravitation work?\nHigh probability: gravitation is mediated by a particle exchange.\nLower probability: exchange of massive, charged particles.\nStill lower probability: exchange of protons.\nExtremely low probability: exchange of gumballs.\nVanishingly small probability: massive particles yearn for\n each other.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bizarre historical aside: Many of Newton's contempories objected to his \ntheory of gravitation because, to them, it smacked of the last answer in \nthat list. Which wasn't really the case; it just _sounded_ like that if \nyou'd been trying to remove the last vestiges of alchemy from your \nscientific system (Isaac's fondness for attempting to find the \nphilosopher's stone probably didn't help, I imagine).\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370502091013382306bb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-09T10:13:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:30:46 +0000, Iorwerth Thomas\n wrote:\nVanishingly small probability: massive particles yearn for\n each other.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Bizarre historical aside: Many of Newton's contempories objected to his\ntheory of gravitation because, to them, it smacked of the last answer in\nthat list. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If I recall correctly (and it may be that I don't) even Newton shied\naway from it at first because it smacked of - heck, at that point, it\n_was_ - \"action at a distance.\"\n\n-Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "<006b01c50f06$6f0312e0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-09T16:21:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: maru\nSo you are confronted with a di-lemna: Either you are a slave\nto your desires, and free will is an incoherent, but comforting illusion;\nor you are doomed to unhappiness, when you 'freely' choose against what\nreally matters to youy, what makes you happy.\nNice bilemna eh?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The thing that bothers me about this is that is clumps all desires into the\nsame bin. It gathers my (once a week or so) desire to run away from home\nleaving my wife and children to start a new life where no one knows me with\nmy \"desire\" to do what I am convinced I \"ought\" to do--sometimes by reason,\nsometimes by instruction -- which is contrary to what I generally think of\nas my \"desires\". This willy-nilly reductionism does not strike me as\nreasonable. (Of course Hume apparently deals with choices, not desires - so\nthis has nothing to do with his theories).\n\nAlso, while this has nothing directly to do with the current discussion, it\nhas brought to mind the characters, John and Vertue in C.S. Lewis' allegory\n_Pilgrim's Regress_. Both John and Vertue are traveling the same road\ntogether. John is seeking an Island he saw in a vision where he desires to\nbe with all his heart. Vertue traveling the road because he wants to exert\nhis free will, choosing without regard to \"bribes\" of happiness or \"threats\"\nof consequences. The worthiness of a path in Mr. Vertue's mind is that it\nis the path he has chosen on his own and not one chosen for him. Otherwise,\nhe doesn't see any particular value of one path over another. But Vertue,\nafter discussion with a Nietzcheistic Nazi dwarf named Savage, comes to an\nimpasse where he cannot choose between two (moral) forks in the road because\nhe has no basis to pick between them:\n________________________________________\n\"John, I do not know what is coming over me. Long ago you asked me...where I\nwas going and why: and I remember that I brushed the question aside. At that\ntime it seemed to me so much more important to keep my rules and do my\nthirty miles a day. But I am beginning to find that it will not do. In the\nold days it was always a question of doing what I chose instead of what I\nwanted; but now I am beginning to be uncertain what it is I choose.\"\n\n\"How has this come about?\" said John.\n\n\"Do you know that I nearly decided to stay with Savage?\"\n\n\"With Savage?\"\n\n\"It sounds like raving, but think it over. Supposing there is no Landlord,\nno mountains in the East, no Island in the West, nothing but this country. A\nfew weeks ago I would have said that all those things made no difference.\nBut now--I don't know. it is quite clear that all the ordinary ways of\nliving in this country lead to something which I certainly do _not_\nchoose....Then there is the life I have been leading myself-- marching on I\ndon't know where. I can't see that there is any other good in it except the\nmere fact of imposing my will on my inclinations. And that seems to be good\n_training_, but training for what? Suppose after all it was training for\nbattle? Is it so absurd to think that that might be the thing we were born\nfor? A fight in a narrow place, life or death; -- that must be the final act\nof will -- the conquest of the deepest inclination of all.\"\n\n\"I think my heart will break,\" said John after they had gone many paces in\nsilence. \"I came out to find my Island. I am not high-minded like you,\nVertue: it was never anything but sweet desire that led me. I have not\nsmelled the air from that Island since--since--it is so long that I cannot\nremember. I saw more of it at home. And now my only friend talks of selling\nhimself to dwarfs.\"\n\n\"I am sorry for you,\" said Vertue, \"and I am sorry for myself. I am sorry\nfor every blade of grass and for this barren rock we are treading and the\nvery sky above us. But I have no help to give you.\"\n\n\"Perhaps,\" said John, \"there are [good and bad] things East and West of this\ncountry after all.\"\n\nDon't you see?\" he said. \"Suppose there is anything East and West. How can\nthat give me a motive for going on? That is a threat. I meant to be a free\nman. I meant to choose things because I chose to choose them -- not because\nI was paid for it. Do you think I am a child to be scared with rods and\nbaited with sugar plums? It was for this reason that I never even inquired\nwhether the stories about the Landlord were true; I saw that his castle and\nhis black hole were there to corrupt my will and kill my freedom. If it was\ntrue it was a truth an honest man must not know.\"\n\nEvening darkened on the tableland and they sat for a long time immovable.\n\n\"I believe that I am mad,\" said Vertue presently. \"The world cannot be as it\nseems to me. If there is something to go to, it is a bribe, and I cannot go\nto it: if I can go, then there is nothing to go to.\"\n\n\"Vertue,\" said John, \"give in. For once yield to desire. Have done with your\nchoosing. _Want_ something.\"\n\n\"I cannot,\" said Vertue. \"I must choose because I choose because I choose;\nand it goes on forever, and in the whole world I cannot find a reason for\nrising from this stone.\"\n\n\"Is it not reason enough that the cold will presently kill us here?\"\n\nIt had grown quite dark and Vertue made no reply.\n\n\"Vertue!\" said John, and then suddenly again in a louder voice, frightened,\n\"Vertue!\" But there was no reply.\n__________________________\n\nBased on Wolfe's major characters in the Sun cycle, and other novels, I\nsuspect that he is very much compelled by Lewis' argument (he makes it\nelsewhere as well) that our truest desires were designed to lead us to the\nhighest Good.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4211512C.8060605@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T17:32:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<006b01c50f06$6f0312e0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nThe thing that bothers me about this is that is clumps all desires into the\nsame bin. It gathers my (once a week or so) desire to run away from home\nleaving my wife and children to start a new life where no one knows me with\nmy \"desire\" to do what I am convinced I \"ought\" to do--sometimes by reason,\nsometimes by instruction -- which is contrary to what I generally think of\nas my \"desires\". This willy-nilly reductionism does not strike me as\nreasonable. (Of course Hume apparently deals with choices, not desires - so\nthis has nothing to do with his theories).\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We cannot desire to be good, virtous people, with all the concomitant\nrestrictions that imposes?\n\n~Maru\n'That shalt have no desires above Virtue'\nto mangle a quote." } ] }, { "message_id": "<42115130.8040009@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T17:32:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nPretty good. Here's a possible counterexample (original to a \nCalvinist cognitive scientist by the name of Donald Mackie - or \nMackay; I forget which - via John Barrow's nice little book \n'Impossibility').\n\nLet's assume all of the above, plus the not unreasonable - given our \npresent state of knowledge - that these desires correlate with brain \nstates. Let's also (just for fun) assume that the laws of the universe \nare completely deterministic - no quantum mechanics - and reductionist \n- all is controlled by the laws of physics with no emergence. None of \nthese additional assumptions appear to be necessary for this argument, \nthey merely point out how strong it is.\n\nIn this hypothetical universe, I have indulged in a little black magic \nand conjured Laplace's Demon, the bodiless, ominescient intelligence \nwhich can predict the actions of everything in the universe. I have \nasked you what you wish to have for lunch tomorrow. I am told that \nyou will, given your brain state now, have a cheese sandwich for lunch \ntomorrow.\n\nFine. If I wait and watch, I will see you eating a cheese sandwich \ntomorrow. But what if (loony sorcerer that I am) I _tell_ you what \nyou are going to have to eat tomorrow as soon as I aquire the \ninformation?\n\nIt transpires that I change your brain state from a) not knowing what \nI was going to eat tomorrow to b)knowing what I am going to eat \ntomorrow. This throws the prediction a little out of whack, so I rush \nback to my summoning circle and ask the Demon for a new prediction \nconcerning your actions given your present brain state of b). Which \nhe does.\n\nEnthused, I run back to you and tell you what you are going to eat \ntomorrow and thus change your brain stait to c) knowing what I'm going \nto eat tomorrow given I have brain state b). Which throws the \nprediction out of whack, so I run back to the Demon and.... etc.\n\nI can't tell you what you're going to do (even if I have perfect \nknowledge of it) without no possibility of changing what you will do, \nwhich removes some of the sting from physical determinism. Replace \n'brain states' with the 'my desires' and, assuming that you're \nresponsive to the environment your desires might well change when \nyou're told what you're going to do (particularly if you tend to \ndesire the frustration of arrogant black magicians who wish to predict \nthe future!).\n\nThere are almost certainly a lot of problems with this story, but I'm \nfond of it.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be able to\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I will \nbegin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final desires \nwill be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the \nonly unkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make his \npredictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42115135.5060102@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T17:32:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705020814335dd7b0c5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nMmmm. Yes and no. Support, yes. Not proof ... except ... Well, \nthere are real-world problems with limited domains, and in those\ndomains, you can sometimes demonstrate that only a certain\nnumber of possible _theories_ exist. But most such situations\nconcern theories-about-fact rather than theories-about-general-\nprinciples. \n\n(Ex: Three people are locked in a room. One is stabbed\nto death - several wounds. There are only seven possible \nanswers to the question \"whodunit?\") \n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, that's assuming quite a number of givens or axioms e g. ' no one else\ncoulda got in' 'people cannot commit suicide or help each other murder a \nperson'\n'stab wounds cannot magically or spontaneously appear- all stab wounds \ncorrespond\nwith a stab and vice versa' etc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But for more general (scientific) problems ... it seems to me that\ndisconfirmation is the best we can hope for, because there are\nalways more theories and, while we can generally rank them\nin loose probability-clusters,\n\n(Ex: How does gravitation work?\nHigh probability: gravitation is mediated by a particle exchange.\nLower probability: exchange of massive, charged particles.\nStill lower probability: exchange of protons.\nExtremely low probability: exchange of gumballs.\nVanishingly small probability: massive particles yearn for\n each other.)\n\nand in fact we _have_ to rank them this way, because otherwise\nthere's no way of deciding which theories are most worth testing.\n\n(Ex: We will probably never test the gumball theory, nor the\ntheory I've just invented, that gravitation is mediated by \ntiny alien elephants flying around in the noosphere, propagating \nmorphogenic resonance and administering random rectal\nprobes to isolated humans.)\n\nBut, alas, now and then theories that look like they should be\nranked very low turn out, with new experimental data, to be\nmuch more likely true than the ones in the former high \nprobability grouping. (Ex: the heliocentric theory. Evolution.\nQuantum decoherence - well, no, anyone with any common\nsense recognized the inherent rightness of that one \nimmediately...)\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Consider that every situation can be broken down to a binary choice \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suspect that this is true only of situations where you are faced\nwith countably finite numbers of possible choices...\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sounds to me like someone has thought up a situations\nin which one is faced with transfinite choices\nWait, does that even make sense in our universe? ><" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding your \"bi-lemma\": It only works if you're reasonably\nconfident of your ability to choose the option that best matches\nyour desires. Some of us (me) often wind up like the famous\ndonkey that starved to death because he was equidistant from \ntwo equally tasty-looking piles of hay.\n\nThis example was originally cooked up to prove that animals \n_aren't_ automata, because this would never happen to any \n_real_ donkey. Which however suggests to me that the real \ndonkey is indeed the automaton, which evolution has \nthoughtfully provided with a nonalgorithmic solution to such\nsituations - \"pick one at random.\" Whereas we, nonautomata,\ncan dither forever.\n\n--Dan'l\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or the odds are against a static enviroment *AND* static internal variables.\nConsider a donkey in such a dilemna sitting outside- a bird or human will\neventually fly/walk by and startle the donkey, who will thereby find \nhimself nearer\none hay rather than the other. So he picks the easier nearer one. \nProblem solved.\nOr another similar scenario. I just don't think it is possible for a \nsituation to occur\nin which anybody can dither forever, because of everyone else doing \nother things.\nBut maybe a dead-lock breaker was built-in by evolution. Doesn't seem \nvery likely tho'\n\n~Maru\nOne more thing!\nI was reading in my Star Wars collection t'other day, when, en route to \nBoba Fett's\nstory in Tales from Jabba's Palace, to see whether I could place anymore \nof the anecdotes,\nan excruciating name caught my eye.\nIt was remarkably similar to yours. A relation?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<006d01c51305$ce1f9e30$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-14T18:26:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<4211512C.8060605@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We cannot desire to be good, virtous people, with all the concomitant\nrestrictions that imposes?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure we can -- Jesus said we were \"blessed\" if we did -- but that desire\nstrikes me as quite different from the desires to eat \"whatever I like\"\n(note that that idiom wasn't picked out the air) or otherwise \"do what comes\nnaturally\". It is not fun. It does not feel good in the same way. It is not\nthe pursuit of happiness by any direct route (who said happiness cannot be\ncaught by those who pursue it?). The desire to be good is of a _higher\norder_. I do not think it is reasonable to toss it in the bin with those\ndesires I have as \"a brute beast\", as the Apostle Paul put it.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<421167EA.2040902@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T19:09:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<006d01c51305$ce1f9e30$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nWe cannot desire to be good, virtous people, with all the concomitant\nrestrictions that imposes?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sure we can -- Jesus said we were \"blessed\" if we did -- but that desire\nstrikes me as quite different from the desires to eat \"whatever I like\"\n(note that that idiom wasn't picked out the air) or otherwise \"do what comes\nnaturally\". It is not fun. It does not feel good in the same way. It is not\nthe pursuit of happiness by any direct route (who said happiness cannot be\ncaught by those who pursue it?). The desire to be good is of a _higher\norder_. I do not think it is reasonable to toss it in the bin with those\ndesires I have as \"a brute beast\", as the Apostle Paul put it.\n\n~ Crush\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is entirely your perogative. Myself, I see people desiring to be \nhappy. So, they act good so others do\nnot harm them, so they can get things they want that less-devious \nmaneuvering wouldn't get them, and\nin a religious context, to get to the infinite bliss of heaven.\nPerhaps this strikes you as entirely too cynical.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050215041044.80091.qmail@web54407.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T20:10:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<421167EA.2040902@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is entirely your perogative. Myself, I see people desiring to be \nhappy. So, they act good so others do\nnot harm them, so they can get things they want that less-devious \nmaneuvering wouldn't get them, and\nin a religious context, to get to the infinite bliss of heaven.\nPerhaps this strikes you as entirely too cynical.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I've gotten older, I've noticed more and more that I read my own motivations into\nother people's actions. Not that I *do* it more and more, just that I've noticed\nhow much I do it, because it's very difficult not to when you haven't been exposed\nto alternate motivations. Would it then be a mistake for me to read that reading of\nmy own actions into your reading of other people's motivation for happiness?\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T22:51:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<42115130.8040009@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon (well, \ngranted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than one. But working \nwith what you've hinted at, start by asking if the demon is inside the \nuniverse or apart from it on some higher level? If the latter then either \nhe's not available for your thought problem or your universe isn't \ndeterministic, and if the former you run into the whole \ndrawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential knowledge, \nthat is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What everyone knows on the \nother hand, so that the difference is the trivial one of how it is known, \nthat is a waste of effort to be concerned about - for one cannot possibly \nbecome self-important through knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be able to\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I will \nbegin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final desires \nwill be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the only \nunkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make his \npredictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-14T22:53:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<42115135.5060102@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you ever heard of a particular type of monkey trap? I have never heard \nanything but anecdotal evidence as to whether it really works." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential knowledge, \nthat is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What everyone knows on the \nother hand, so that the difference is the trivial one of how it is known, \nthat is a waste of effort to be concerned about - for one cannot possibly \nbecome self-important through knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or another similar scenario. I just don't think it is possible for a \nsituation to occur\nin which anybody can dither forever, because of everyone else doing other \nthings.\nBut maybe a dead-lock breaker was built-in by evolution. Doesn't seem very \nlikely tho'\n\n~Maru\nOne more thing!\nI was reading in my Star Wars collection t'other day, when, en route to \nBoba Fett's\nstory in Tales from Jabba's Palace, to see whether I could place anymore of \nthe anecdotes,\nan excruciating name caught my eye.\nIt was remarkably similar to yours. A relation?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00a601c51376$9d186ee0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-15T07:54:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Or another similar scenario. I just don't think it is possible for a\nsituation to occur\nin which anybody can dither forever, because of everyone else doing other\nthings.\nBut maybe a dead-lock breaker was built-in by evolution. Doesn't seem\nvery\nlikely tho'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Have you ever heard of a particular type of monkey trap? I have never heard\nanything but anecdotal evidence as to whether it really works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Put so fruit in a jar and tie the jar to a stake. The monkey grabs the fruit\nbut cannot extract his hand while he holds it. He must drop the fruit to\nescape but he never does (at least for the ones that are caught). I've seen\nit work. I've even seen it work on a young chimpanzee.\n\nIt's not exactly dithering between two choices, however, is it? But I get\nyour point that evolution does not provide a life-preserving automatic\nresolution to all choices.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705021509293ab9cde5@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-15T09:29:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<42115135.5060102@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "(Ex: Three people are locked in a room. One is stabbed\nto death - several wounds. There are only seven possible\nanswers to the question \"whodunit?\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, that's assuming quite a number of givens or axioms e g. ' no one else\ncoulda got in' 'people cannot commit suicide or help each other murder a\nperson' 'stab wounds cannot magically or spontaneously appear- all stab \nwounds correspond with a stab and vice versa' etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I did include suicide as one of my seven options, as well as \nsuicide assisted by one or both of the other two. To be precise,\nmy seven possible answers to \"whodunit\" were:\n\n1. Suicide by V\n2. Murder by A\n3. Murder by B\n4. A+V\n5. A+B\n6. B+V\n7. A+B+V\n\nI admit that I am taking as axiomatic that being \"stabbed to death\"\n(the given condition was that V was in fact stabbed to death, not just\nthat V is dead and there are stab wounds on the body) implies that \nsomeone did the stabbing, By \"locked in a room\" I intended (by the \nconventions of the locked room mystery) to make it axiomatic that\nnobody could get in or out during the period in which the stabbing\ntook place." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I suspect that this is true only of situations where you are faced\nwith countably finite numbers of possible choices..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sounds to me like someone has thought up a situations\nin which one is faced with transfinite choices\nWait, does that even make sense in our universe? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm. Good question; assume that time and space are\nquantized and there's no situation I can think of in which \nwe might have a _genuinely_ transfinite number of \nchoices. However, we can have situations which are for\nall purposes nonfinite - like the \"infinitely variable\" speed\ncontrol on a power drill, or the analog volume control on a\ntube-driven stereo receiver: it must have some quantized\nnumber of states, but those states are closer together than\nthe limit of our ability to distinguish them, so they are \nindistinguishable from an uncountably infinite set to the\nlimits of our perceptions." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One more thing!\nI was reading in my Star Wars collection t'other day, when, en route\nto Boba Fett's story in Tales from Jabba's Palace, to see whether I\ncould place anymore of the anecdotes, an excruciating name caught\nmy eye. It was remarkably similar to yours. A relation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The closest possible relation, me. What are you doing reading \nsuch trash?\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-15T12:39:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705021509293ab9cde5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good heavens!!!! " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The closest possible relation, me. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<42126087.7020108@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-15T12:50:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705021509293ab9cde5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nOne more thing!\nI was reading in my Star Wars collection t'other day, when, en route\nto Boba Fett's story in Tales from Jabba's Palace, to see whether I\ncould place anymore of the anecdotes, an excruciating name caught\nmy eye. It was remarkably similar to yours. A relation?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The closest possible relation, me. What are you doing reading \nsuch trash?\n\n--Dan'l\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What are you doing writing such trash?\n\nBut seriously, when I was younger, I was very much into Star Wars,\n(having never got the appeal of Star Trek, nor was I exposed\nto D & D. So my geek creds are largely confined to that sector.)\nand bought most of the novels. When I stopped, around the lousy New \nJedi Order\nreleases, I had about 70, a pretty comprehensive collection.\nNow, recently, I got 'Zen Flesh, Zen Bones'. One of the stories in it \nwas of a fellow\ndangling from a cliff, tigers above and below. The branch he is \nclinging to is slipping.\nSuddenly, he sees some strawberrys and eats them. How sweet they taste, \nhe thinks.\n\nThere is a story exactly analolgous to it in 'A Barve like that', the \nstory I was looking for\nto verify the resemblance, when I stumbled on your name.\nAnd that's that.\n\n~Maru\nI never did figure out where the pig joke in that story came from though." } ] }, { "message_id": "<42128505.9060302@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-15T15:26:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.\nYour effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe\nNow, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is \nomniscient, and we've\ncarefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only \npossible perturbing\nfactor is the self-same Demons deeds.\nHowever, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what he \nwill do, and\nwhat effects that will have, he knows himself! He knows what he wants \nor will do, and so\ncan factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.\nThe problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or will \nbe self-similar/self-fulflling.\n\nAn entirely different problem from free will.\n\n~Maru\nThe lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nThere is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon \n(well, granted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than one. \nBut working with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the demon \nis inside the universe or apart from it on some higher level? If the \nlatter then either he's not available for your thought problem or your \nuniverse isn't deterministic, and if the former you run into the whole \ndrawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.\n\nCivet\n\n-- \n\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential \nknowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What \neveryone knows on the other hand, so that the difference is the \ntrivial one of how it is known, that is a waste of effort to be \nconcerned about - for one cannot possibly become self-important \nthrough knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be \nable to\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I \nwill begin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final \ndesires will be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the \nonly unkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make \nhis predictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-15T17:30:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<42128505.9060302@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Even if you carefully specify that it's completely deterministic, the \n\"careless\" aspect stipulates just as firmly that it can't be deterministic. \nBecause the demon is outside the system, he can't interact with it if it's a \nclosed system. If he can interact with it, then you have influences outside \nthe universe affecting causality within the universe, and it's not \ndeterministic.\n\nIf you extend your system to include the demon's interaction, then you've \neffectively placed the demon inside the horizon of your system/universe, and \nthus you get the other problem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.\nYour effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe\nNow, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is \nomniscient, and we've\ncarefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only possible \nperturbing\nfactor is the self-same Demons deeds.\nHowever, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what he \nwill do, and\nwhat effects that will have, he knows himself! He knows what he wants or \nwill do, and so\ncan factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.\nThe problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or will be \nself-similar/self-fulflling.\n\nAn entirely different problem from free will.\n\n~Maru\nThe lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible.\n\nChris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon (well, \ngranted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than one. But \nworking with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the demon is inside \nthe universe or apart from it on some higher level? If the latter then \neither he's not available for your thought problem or your universe isn't \ndeterministic, and if the former you run into the whole \ndrawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.\n\nCivet\n\n--\n\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential \nknowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What everyone \nknows on the other hand, so that the difference is the trivial one of how \nit is known, that is a waste of effort to be concerned about - for one \ncannot possibly become self-important through knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be able \nto\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I will \nbegin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final desires \nwill be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the \nonly unkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make his \npredictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4212BA39.7030901@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-15T19:13:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing (fwd)", "in_reply_to": "<20050215041044.80091.qmail@web54407.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Nathan Spears wrote:\nThat is entirely your perogative. Myself, I see people desiring to be \nhappy. So, they act good so others do\nnot harm them, so they can get things they want that less-devious \nmaneuvering wouldn't get them, and\nin a religious context, to get to the infinite bliss of heaven.\nPerhaps this strikes you as entirely too cynical.\n\n~Maru\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As I've gotten older, I've noticed more and more that I read my own motivations into\nother people's actions. Not that I *do* it more and more, just that I've noticed\nhow much I do it, because it's very difficult not to when you haven't been exposed\nto alternate motivations. Would it then be a mistake for me to read that reading of\nmy own actions into your reading of other people's motivation for happiness?\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not at all. \nI've long been convinced that my (and everyones really. They might not \ngo about it\nvery competently, but it seems universal to me) chief desire was to be \nhappy, and all\nmy desires should be subordinated to that goal.\nThus far, what seems to satisfy my desires, and also bring me happiness \nis knowledge,\nand games & computers, and good literature like Wolfe's. \nAnd good oolong tea, but that is just me : )\n\n~Maru\nI am curious what other motivations for happiness there could be, since \nmy own formulation\nis undoubtedly marred by observer-bias." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-16T06:21:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "<4212BA39.7030901@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not at all. I've long been convinced that my (and everyones really. They \nmight not go about it\nvery competently, but it seems universal to me) chief desire was to be \nhappy, and all\nmy desires should be subordinated to that goal.\nThus far, what seems to satisfy my desires, and also bring me happiness is \nknowledge,\nand games & computers, and good literature like Wolfe's. And good oolong \ntea, but that is just me : )" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aristotle appears to have started his ethics along similar lines, but his \ndefinition of happiness winds up pretty different from the common-or-garden \ndefinition. And he'd agree with you on the value of knowledge :)\n\n(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ if you really care about \nhow this approach has been recently developed; it's one of the less dry \nentries. The bit on whether virtue is suffiecient or necessary for \neudaemonia [flourishing] has some relevance to what I'm about to say.)\n\n'Happiness' in the common sense might have problems being defined as the aim \nof a prisoner of conscience in a Third-World country who refuses to back \ndown on his or her beliefs in full knowledge of the consequences; while such \na person might be described as 'morally fulfilled' - and may even feel so, \non occasion - describing someone who is being frequently beaten, in solitary \nconfinement, and/or tortured as 'happy' does feel like an abuse of the term, \nI'm afraid. Though I may be misunderstanding your intent. (Which is \nsomething I'm good at doing, so please forgive me if I have!)\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-16T07:33:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<42115130.8040009@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm going to backtrack a bit on this discussion; I've been a a bit out the \nloop due to a horrible flu/cough thing that had me running a high fever \nuntil yesterday..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru \n\nLaplace's demon is truly omniscience no?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Only in the sense that if you give him deterministic physical laws and some \nintial conditions, he can calculate everything that follows from them with \narbtrary accuracy." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be able to\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I will \nbegin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final desires \nwill be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the only \nunkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make his \npredictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm. I think I may have botched my presentation of the argument. You are \nquite right. _But_, the issue isn't what the demon knows, it's what _you_, \nas the person who has just been given the prediction, are correct in \nbelieving; the implication being that there's no determinate plan of your \nfuture actions that you'd be correct in believing if only you knew it. \nThus, even if your actions are in some sense determined by the laws of \nphysics, this isn't quite the same as metaphysical determinism, where you'd \nexpect there to be a determinate plan of your future actions that would \nremain correct if you knew it. I think.\n\nI think I've fatally flawed the whole thing by bringing in the demon, though \n[1]. Originally, it was a large computer, and the result was then \ngeneralised by replacing the computer with God in an attempt to \nshort-circuit the free-will vs. predestination debate. Barrow's book gives \na better explanation (mostly by quoting Mackay/Mackie).\n\nThere may a small scale analogy of this knd of thing with psychology \nexperiments - I imagine that if you're trying to repeat an experiment and \nsome of the group are aware of the original results it skews thing somewhat. \n Maybe someone who knows more than me can confirm/deny this.\n\nIorwerth\n\n[1] It's due to an idea for a 'Black Easter' - style short story I keep \nthinking of writing, hampered mostly by my lack of talent, time and the \nunfortunate fact that I've never read 'Black Easter'." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050216153402.3172.qmail@web54402.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-02-16T07:34:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would say that defining happiness as the pursuit of one's desires is semantically\nempty, because one can always say, \"Of course you're pursuing that which you desire;\nhow else can one act?\" Talking about lower desire and higher, base and meta-, will\nnot help avoid this silliness.\n\nIn discussions like this I think it would be good to limit our use of the word\n'happiness' to that feeling which ranges from emotional euphoria to contentment,\nwhich is hard to define but everyone understands: that which is generally meant when\npeople say, \"I'm feeling happy.\"\n\nI can't think of a word that encompasses the state of mind Iowerth alluded to, of\nmoral fulfillment, when someone is caused pain and suffering because they refuse to\ncompromise themselves. \"Morally fulfilled\" doesn't seem to describe their mental\nstate in the same way that \"happiness\" describes someone who is having fun or\nfeeling loved or what have you. Perhaps the word to use, which is difficult to\nbring up without all kinds of negative connotations in this age, is \"righteous.\" It\nseems like a condescending jibe to say that someone \"feels righteous,\" but if you\ncan't feel consolation in the fact that you are doing (what you believe is) the\nright thing even as you die for it, then when is a good time?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not at all. I've long been convinced that my (and everyones really. They \nmight not go about it\nvery competently, but it seems universal to me) chief desire was to be \nhappy, and all\nmy desires should be subordinated to that goal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's why I think this statement is confusing. I don't know whether by \"happy\" you\nmean, \"sensationally elated,\" or \"loved,\" or \"righteous,\" or whatever other zillion\nthings. In (the semantically empty) one sense all your desires *must* be\nsubordinated to your desire to be happy; say rather that they *are*. In the case of\n\"sensorial satisfaction as happiness,\" then you aren't elevating yourself much above\nanimals. I don't think that's what you are saying, but my point is that it's very\ndifficult to know what you are saying." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thus far, what seems to satisfy my desires, and also bring me happiness is \nknowledge,\nand games & computers, and good literature like Wolfe's. And good oolong \ntea, but that is just me : )" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a start, but it's more testimonial than anything else. You haven't said why\nthese things make you happy.\n\nI think Wolfe takes aim at this question in The Wizard Knight; it seems that people\nof worth in his tale are people concerned with \"right doing,\" and not with pursuit\nof happiness as defined above. I think Wolfe was saying that many times the best\nway to know how to act rightly (which is to say, more like a knight; I think it was\nobvious that everyone is called to knighthood) is to act like someone you know is a\nknight, or is more knightly than you are. So Able acts like Ravd until he is more a\nknight than Ravd was. Then his model becomes The Valfather's son. The point I\nthink Wolfe was trying to make is that (even in a world of seven tiers with gods and\nmore gods) eventually we are trying to become like The Most High God, but He is so\nfar above us that it can be hard to know what He would do. Wolfe makes this point\nalso in the parable of the angel and the rooster in BotNS.\n\nI'm not trying to say that becoming like the Most High God doesn't involve\nknowledge, and games and computers, and good oolong tea, and all sorts of other\nthings that make us happy. Sometimes, though, as The Knight illustrates, it\ninvolves less immediately (or never) pleasing activities." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370502161013313befb7@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-16T10:13:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[T]he issue isn't what the demon knows, it's what _you_,\nas the person who has just been given the prediction, are correct in\nbelieving; the implication being that there's no determinate plan of your\nfuture actions that you'd be correct in believing if only you knew it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If I were given a determinate plan of my future actions, the first\nthing on the list would be \"burn this document.\" And I would.\n\nObviously, a lot of this kind of speculation is reflected in \nmyths and stories about the working-out of prophecies by those \nwho try to avoid them (Oedipus, the Appointment in Samarra, \netc.) - a great deal of effort has been gone to over the ages to \nshow that predestination and free will are not inherently \nincompatible concepts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thus, even if your actions are in some sense determined by the laws \nof physics, this isn't quite the same as metaphysical determinism, \nwhere you'd expect there to be a determinate plan of your future\nactions that would remain correct if you knew it. I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I guess the question is whether the plan takes into account your\nknowledge of the plan. \n\nSuppose I have been given such a plan and, foolishly, read the\nfirst page of it. I would immediately be tempted to do something\nother than the first thing it said. If I then returned to the plan,\nwould it say, \"Reading the above, he decides to do something\nelse?\" Would it have changed to show what I actually did do?\nOr would it now be an utterly inaccurate plan? Might it self-\ndestruct?\n\nI agree with what I take to be the point - a detailed foreknowledge\nof one's own actions can be self-defeating." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[1] It's due to an idea for a 'Black Easter' - style short story I keep\nthinking of writing, hampered mostly by my lack of talent, time and the\nunfortunate fact that I've never read 'Black Easter'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You really should, but preferably in context - if you don't know (and\nI am not assuming you don't, just not assuming you _do_ eithe),\nit's part of the second volume of a trilogy - a _true_ trilogy, three \nthematically linked novels, rather than a three-novel series or a \nthree-volume novels. The theme is the permissibility of secular\nknowledge in the context of the Christian faith. The novels are\n1. _Doctor Mirabilis_ - realistic/historical.\n2. _Black Easter_ and _The Day After Judgement_ - contemporary\n dark fantasies, sometimes published in one volume as _The\n Devil's Day_.\n3. _A Case of Conscience_ - future SF.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T07:30:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Black Easter", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370502161013313befb7@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You really should, but preferably in context - if you don't know (and\nI am not assuming you don't, just not assuming you _do_ eithe),\nit's part of the second volume of a trilogy - a _true_ trilogy, three\nthematically linked novels, rather than a three-novel series or a\nthree-volume novels. The theme is the permissibility of secular\nknowledge in the context of the Christian faith. The novels are\n1. _Doctor Mirabilis_ - realistic/historical.\n2. _Black Easter_ and _The Day After Judgement_ - contemporary\n dark fantasies, sometimes published in one volume as _The\n Devil's Day_.\n3. _A Case of Conscience_ - future SF." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm afraid that's why I haven't read it yet; at present, I think only 'A \nCase of Conscience' is actually in print in the UK; I did look quickly on \nAmazon a few weeks ago and found a compliation of all 3 novels going for \nsomething like £150, which is a little beyond my finances. I refuse to \nread any of them if I cant get hold of all of them, which is probably \nslightly silly of me.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-02-17T07:48:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Black Easter", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You really should, but preferably in context - if you don't know (and\nI am not assuming you don't, just not assuming you _do_ eithe),\nit's part of the second volume of a trilogy - a _true_ trilogy, three\nthematically linked novels, rather than a three-novel series or a\nthree-volume novels. The theme is the permissibility of secular\nknowledge in the context of the Christian faith. The novels are\n1. _Doctor Mirabilis_ - realistic/historical.\n2. _Black Easter_ and _The Day After Judgement_ - contemporary\n dark fantasies, sometimes published in one volume as _The\n Devil's Day_.\n3. _A Case of Conscience_ - future SF." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm afraid that's why I haven't read it yet; at present, I think only 'A \nCase of Conscience' is actually in print in the UK; I did look quickly on \nAmazon a few weeks ago and found a compliation of all 3 novels going for \nsomething like ?150, which is a little beyond my finances. I refuse to \nread any of them if I cant get hold of all of them, which is probably \nslightly silly of me. \n\nIorwerth " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Amazon.com has them all . . . ????? " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T07:50:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370502161013313befb7@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I guess the question is whether the plan takes into account your\nknowledge of the plan.\n\nSuppose I have been given such a plan and, foolishly, read the\nfirst page of it. I would immediately be tempted to do something\nother than the first thing it said. If I then returned to the plan,\nwould it say, \"Reading the above, he decides to do something\nelse?\" Would it have changed to show what I actually did do?\nOr would it now be an utterly inaccurate plan? Might it self-\ndestruct?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just remembered - my great disappointment with the film of 'The Minority \nReport' was that it replaced a philosophical teaser of this kind with a bog \nstandard Hollywood conspiracy and 'free will exists if I make enough \nstirring speeches about it' type plot. In Dick's original story, the \nprecogs in fact view three different futures - the first being where the \nprotagonist commits murder, the second being where he doesn't commit the \nmurder as a result (in part) of believing the first prediction, and the last \nbeing where he commits the murder as a result (in part) of believing the \nsecond prediction. Since he chooses to believe the minority report (that he \nwon't commit murder), he winds up doing so.\n\nThis was probably considered a little tricky for cinema audiences to \nunderstand. And would probably have caused Germaine Grier (who seems to \nhave problems with suspension of disbelief) even more problems with the film \nthan she already had [1] when she was on the reviewing panel of 'Newsnight \nReview'.\n\nNot a bad film, though.\n\nIorwerth\n\n[1] They could be summed up as: 'I can't see how precognition could happen, \ntherefore it's impossible, therefore this film is nonsense, as it confuses \nme. Surely representations of philosophical problems must be literally \npossible in order to be worthwhile, or I won't be able to understand them.' \nBut I'm being a little cruel, particularly as she's always a good laugh when \nshe's on the panel unless you're talking sf or fantasy - then she's just \npainful. The general views of the panel regarding the film were largely \npositive, if I recall correctly." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T09:18:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Black Easter", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Andy Robertson\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Amazon.com has them all . . . ?????" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I did a check right now and it does - the compilation is even going \nfor £20; I'm feeling a little silly. In my defense, the previous check was \ndone when it was late and I was tired... (Ah, the most universal of \nexcuses...)\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705021710236f882fe6@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T10:23:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmmm. I rather liked the \"Minority Report\" film, actually ...\nI learned long ago that a film isn't a book, and judged by\nthe standards of film, that was a pretty good one. Not up to\n\"Blade Runner,\" but good.\n\nOf course, in a perfectly Phildickian manner, the best film\nbased on a Phil Dick book is based on one that he never\nactually wrote, by which I mean, \"Being John Malkovich\"\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42156F23.5060409@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T20:29:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370502161013313befb7@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Seems fairly foolish: such a document could save you tremendous amounts\nof trouble.\nInstance: what if you read that you were going to spend 30 years \nbouncing around\nas a penniless bum, deperately unhappy, ill with all sorts of nasty \ndiseases, when, due\nto sheer chance, you discover that it was your reason on Earth, your \nraison d'etre, to\nbecome an ink artist. And then it says you are slated to die of a heart \nbreaking from joy,\nwhich only happened because in your 30 years on the street you had to \neat a lot of McDonalds.\n\nWouldn't a youthful version of you want to skip the hellish 30 years and \nmaybe make something\nof yourself as an artist before you die?\n\n~Maru\nAs a rule, I always obey instructions from future versions of me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n[T]he issue isn't what the demon knows, it's what _you_,\nas the person who has just been given the prediction, are correct in\nbelieving; the implication being that there's no determinate plan of your\nfuture actions that you'd be correct in believing if only you knew it.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If I were given a determinate plan of my future actions, the first\nthing on the list would be \"burn this document.\" And I would.\n\nObviously, a lot of this kind of speculation is reflected in \nmyths and stories about the working-out of prophecies by those \nwho try to avoid them (Oedipus, the Appointment in Samarra, \netc.) - a great deal of effort has been gone to over the ages to \nshow that predestination and free will are not inherently \nincompatible concepts.\n \n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<42156F28.5070709@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-17T20:29:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm.\nI'd think there would be some plans that would be correct irregardless \nof who knew it.\nWhat about someone (hypothetically speaking) who didn't mind being \npredicted, and the\nprediction (which we will assume is optimum for him) is optimum from vis \nPOV as well. They have no\nincentive to outdate it by doing something else, in fact, might even \nwork harder to make sure they do\nwhat they woulda done anyway. Put that way and it sounds silly, but so \nmuch does.\n\nAnd psychology experiments are an intersting field of ethics: if people \nknow they are being tested\non how compassionate they are, or how gullible, or how sheep-like, that \nwould throw off results.\nOften experiments are fraught with ethical peril, like ones about \npersauding people against their will,\nor maybe the infamous Stanford prisoner experiments.\n\nIncidentally, this whole tangent about predictions reminds me \nineluctably of the 'Dune' series.\nI never did figure oput what frank Herbert was saying about \npredestination and free will in those works.\n\n~Maru\nInfinite monkeys would type out this conversation, as well as the \nunanswerable rebuttals to both our arguments." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\n....\nUmmm. I think I may have botched my presentation of the argument. \nYou are quite right. _But_, the issue isn't what the demon knows, \nit's what _you_, as the person who has just been given the prediction, \nare correct in believing; the implication being that there's no \ndeterminate plan of your future actions that you'd be correct in \nbelieving if only you knew it. Thus, even if your actions are in some \nsense determined by the laws of physics, this isn't quite the same as \nmetaphysical determinism, where you'd expect there to be a determinate \nplan of your future actions that would remain correct if you knew it. \nI think.\n\nI think I've fatally flawed the whole thing by bringing in the demon, \nthough [1]. Originally, it was a large computer, and the result was \nthen generalised by replacing the computer with God in an attempt to \nshort-circuit the free-will vs. predestination debate. Barrow's book \ngives a better explanation (mostly by quoting Mackay/Mackie).\n\nThere may a small scale analogy of this knd of thing with psychology \nexperiments - I imagine that if you're trying to repeat an experiment \nand some of the group are aware of the original results it skews thing \nsomewhat. Maybe someone who knows more than me can confirm/deny this.\n\nIorwerth\n\n[1] It's due to an idea for a 'Black Easter' - style short story I \nkeep thinking of writing, hampered mostly by my lack of talent, time \nand the unfortunate fact that I've never read 'Black Easter'." } ] }, { "message_id": "<004701c515c0$1ad3cf00$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-18T05:45:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<42156F23.5060409@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Seems fairly foolish: such a document could save you tremendous amounts\nof trouble.\nInstance: what if you read that you were going to spend 30 years\nbouncing around\nas a penniless bum, ... you discover that it was your reason on Earth, your\nraison d'etre, to become an ink artist. And then it says you are slated to\ndie of a heart\nbreaking from...eat a lot of McDonalds.\n\nWouldn't a youthful version of you want to skip the hellish 30 years and\nmaybe make something\nof yourself as an artist before you die?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Having watched plenty of Star Trek episodes, watched the movie \"Twelve\nMonkeys\", and read the story of Cassandra, I know that if such a document\nwere authentic, it would end up that way whether one read it or not.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-18T09:03:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<42156F28.5070709@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmm.\nI'd think there would be some plans that would be correct irregardless of \nwho knew it.\nWhat about someone (hypothetically speaking) who didn't mind being \npredicted, and the\nprediction (which we will assume is optimum for him) is optimum from vis \nPOV as well. They have no\nincentive to outdate it by doing something else, in fact, might even work \nharder to make sure they do\nwhat they woulda done anyway. Put that way and it sounds silly, but so \nmuch does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm. If my choice is between eating a cheese sandwich or being eaten by a \ncrocodile, the chances are that I'll choose the former, however, in order to \nconfirm that for sure after having seen a prediction ( as my mind could now \nchange at the last minute since my brain state has been peturbed [1]), you'd \nhave to make a new prediction. Which you can't show me. I'm starting to \nthink that we're moving in ever decreasing circles here... One of those \nwonderful philosophical impasse things...\n\n[1] It doesn't have to be a _likely_ possibility that, in a moment of \npretentious angst, I suddenly decide on the existentially fulfilling choice \nof suicide via crocodile over the hunger-satisfying cheese sandwich mandated \nby the conformist herd and leap headlong into the animal's jaws - just a \n_logical_ one." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And psychology experiments are an intersting field of ethics: if people \nknow they are being tested\non how compassionate they are, or how gullible, or how sheep-like, that \nwould throw off results.\nOften experiments are fraught with ethical peril, like ones about \npersauding people against their will,\nor maybe the infamous Stanford prisoner experiments." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think I recall an example of this. Either the BBC or Channel 4 (I forget \nwhich) here in the UK attempted to recreate the Stanford experiment. In \nscientific terms it was pretty worthless due to i) the ah, ethical \nlimitations they had to impose on what could be done (just as well given \nwhat happened in the original; ii) the selection criteria for participants \nwere less strict; iii) the de-facto head of the guards had read of the \noriginal experiment and expressed a sincere desire not to be caught \ntorturing people on tv.\n\nAs it was, this time round the prisoners won out, and adopted steriotyped \nrevolutionary behaviour as a result of their dominance (as opposed to the \nprevious experiment, where the guards adopted\nsteriotyped totalitarian behaviour as a result of their dominance). But \nit's a bad experiment, because of points i) to iii)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Infinite monkeys would type out this conversation, as well as the \nunanswerable rebuttals to both >our arguments." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Incidentally, this whole tangent about predictions reminds me ineluctably \nof the 'Dune' series.\nI never did figure oput what frank Herbert was saying about predestination \nand free will in those works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You don't have free will unless you're part of Leto's breeding program? :)\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<421632FD.1000407@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-18T10:25:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nInfinite monkeys would type out this conversation, as well as the \nunanswerable rebuttals to both >our arguments." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yep." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Incidentally, this whole tangent about predictions reminds me \nineluctably of the 'Dune' series.\nI never did figure oput what frank Herbert was saying about \npredestination and free will in those works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You don't have free will unless you're part of Leto's breeding \nprogram? :)\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe only if you were a descendant of Siona?\n\n~Maru\nI dumped too much cinnamon on my morning toast!\nNow I will be locked by prescient vision into one universe fore'er!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-18T11:05:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<004701c515c0$1ad3cf00$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You also have to watch out for time-traveling Nigerian con-artists. \"Your \nfuture self says that if you get a letter from the daughter of the Minister \nof Finance on a certain day, you should give her your bank information so \nthat you can become wealthy beyond belief.\"\n\nActually when you think about it, the ability to travel in time or predict \nthe future accurately makes pretty much all problems so trivial that pretty \nsoon boredom would set in and there would be nothing left to do but mess \nwith people. Give them a few predictions to prove you know what you're \ntalking about, and then mess with their heads. Given enough time almost \nanyone might succumb.\n\nSo, moral of this story, never trust anyone who knows the future, even if \nit's a future version of yourself. (Screwing with past versions of yourself \nwould be the ultimate pastime to put a little danger into your life). \nChances are they're a real jerk." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Having watched plenty of Star Trek episodes, watched the movie \"Twelve\nMonkeys\", and read the story of Cassandra, I know that if such a document\nwere authentic, it would end up that way whether one read it or not.\n\n~ Crush\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42163ECB.1030501@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-18T11:15:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and yet more Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd dispute the bit about boredom: if you are really messing with the \npast, then you are changing your future drastically\n(I will assume here that we are dealing with multi-verse interpretations \nof timetravel. Single universe time travel involves\ntoo many paradoxes.). You'd be hopping though many universes. I fail \nto see how on earth you could possibly get bored.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nYou also have to watch out for time-traveling Nigerian con-artists. \n\"Your future self says that if you get a letter from the daughter of \nthe Minister of Finance on a certain day, you should give her your \nbank information so that you can become wealthy beyond belief.\"\n\n Actually when you think about it, the ability to travel in time or \npredict the future accurately makes pretty much all problems so \ntrivial that pretty soon boredom would set in and there would be \nnothing left to do but mess with people. Give them a few predictions \nto prove you know what you're talking about, and then mess with their \nheads. Given enough time almost anyone might succumb.\n\nSo, moral of this story, never trust anyone who knows the future, even \nif it's a future version of yourself. (Screwing with past versions of \nyourself would be the ultimate pastime to put a little danger into \nyour life). Chances are they're a real jerk." } ] }, { "message_id": "<42196C08.2070407@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-20T21:05:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<20050216153402.3172.qmail@web54402.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah! Finally, someone wonders whether I was playing word-games.\nThe answer is: I don't think so.\n\nIt is circular to define happiness as sating of desires, and desires\nas things whose sating leads to happiness, but the redefining does have some\nbenefit.\n \nI think of it like this: We all start seeking some state labelled\n'happiness'. We aren't sure what it is, but it is what we are hard-wired\nto seek. It is the axiom to our logic, the supergoal to our goalseeking\nbehaivour (from an evolutionary perspective, its a positive feedback\ncycle which causes us to do all the many things required to reproduce\nand survive, in that order).\nOccaisonally we stumble on actions which bring us a little closer\nto that, and we remember and do them again. But of course, we are\nnot islands, and so the happiness of others has direct impacts on our\nown unhappiness.\nDo well-adjusted people molest and bully others?\nThe happiness of others becomes necessary to our own, and we will\neven sacrifice some guaranteed happiness of our own to increase\nthe happiness of the population (leaving out of course, such explanations\nas reciprocation, rational selfishness, increased reproductive fitness, \nmemetic\ndrives etc.)\nAnd eventually, we even juggle desires, suppressing desires and inducing\nlocal minima so as to maximize long run happiness.\n\nAnd even the best medicine can taste nasty. Exercise is unpleasant\nbut we are happier to be fit than not.\n\nOne more thing: I just realized that the Norse conception of worlds involved\nmy favorite number, 9, but Wolfe's involve's 7, which is strewn \nthoughout the Bible.\nInteresting.\n\n~Maru\n$fortune: Your analyst has you mixed up with another patient. Don't \nbelieve a\nthing he tells you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that defining happiness as the pursuit of one's desires is semantically\nempty, because one can always say, \"Of course you're pursuing that which you desire;\nhow else can one act?\" Talking about lower desire and higher, base and meta-, will\nnot help avoid this silliness.\n\nIn discussions like this I think it would be good to limit our use of the word\n'happiness' to that feeling which ranges from emotional euphoria to contentment,\nwhich is hard to define but everyone understands: that which is generally meant when\npeople say, \"I'm feeling happy.\"\n\nI can't think of a word that encompasses the state of mind Iowerth alluded to, of\nmoral fulfillment, when someone is caused pain and suffering because they refuse to\ncompromise themselves. \"Morally fulfilled\" doesn't seem to describe their mental\nstate in the same way that \"happiness\" describes someone who is having fun or\nfeeling loved or what have you. Perhaps the word to use, which is difficult to\nbring up without all kinds of negative connotations in this age, is \"righteous.\" It\nseems like a condescending jibe to say that someone \"feels righteous,\" but if you\ncan't feel consolation in the fact that you are doing (what you believe is) the\nright thing even as you die for it, then when is a good time?\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Not at all. I've long been convinced that my (and everyones really. They \nmight not go about it\nvery competently, but it seems universal to me) chief desire was to be \nhappy, and all\nmy desires should be subordinated to that goal.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's why I think this statement is confusing. I don't know whether by \"happy\" you\nmean, \"sensationally elated,\" or \"loved,\" or \"righteous,\" or whatever other zillion\nthings. In (the semantically empty) one sense all your desires *must* be\nsubordinated to your desire to be happy; say rather that they *are*. In the case of\n\"sensorial satisfaction as happiness,\" then you aren't elevating yourself much above\nanimals. I don't think that's what you are saying, but my point is that it's very\ndifficult to know what you are saying.\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Thus far, what seems to satisfy my desires, and also bring me happiness is \nknowledge,\nand games & computers, and good literature like Wolfe's. And good oolong \ntea, but that is just me : )\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a start, but it's more testimonial than anything else. You haven't said why\nthese things make you happy.\n\nI think Wolfe takes aim at this question in The Wizard Knight; it seems that people\nof worth in his tale are people concerned with \"right doing,\" and not with pursuit\nof happiness as defined above. I think Wolfe was saying that many times the best\nway to know how to act rightly (which is to say, more like a knight; I think it was\nobvious that everyone is called to knighthood) is to act like someone you know is a\nknight, or is more knightly than you are. So Able acts like Ravd until he is more a\nknight than Ravd was. Then his model becomes The Valfather's son. The point I\nthink Wolfe was trying to make is that (even in a world of seven tiers with gods and\nmore gods) eventually we are trying to become like The Most High God, but He is so\nfar above us that it can be hard to know what He would do. Wolfe makes this point\nalso in the parable of the angel and the rooster in BotNS.\n\nI'm not trying to say that becoming like the Most High God doesn't involve\nknowledge, and games and computers, and good oolong tea, and all sorts of other\nthings that make us happy. Sometimes, though, as The Knight illustrates, it\ninvolves less immediately (or never) pleasing activities.\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<42196C0D.4070803@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-20T21:05:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is interesting; I remember you bringing up virtue ethics earlier, \nin a more alien context. It seems to fit; )\nI can't say I really like that philosphy: it seems to boil down to \nselfishness, and I've always been more of a greater\ngood -guy.\nI know a few people who can't be really happy while anyone around them \nis unhappy. Could that be a less-extreme\nexample of what your dissident is doing? More religiously, that seems \nvery much like the bodhisattva idea, but if that's\na bad connection, a misreading of intent, please tell me.\n\n~Maru\nYour fortune is: I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; \nand I like less\nthan half of you half as well as you deserve.\n -- J. R. R. Tolkien" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nAristotle appears to have started his ethics along similar lines, but \nhis definition of happiness winds up pretty different from the \ncommon-or-garden definition. And he'd agree with you on the value of \nknowledge :)\n\n(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ if you really care \nabout how this approach has been recently developed; it's one of the \nless dry entries. The bit on whether virtue is suffiecient or \nnecessary for eudaemonia [flourishing] has some relevance to what I'm \nabout to say.)\n\n'Happiness' in the common sense might have problems being defined as \nthe aim of a prisoner of conscience in a Third-World country who \nrefuses to back down on his or her beliefs in full knowledge of the \nconsequences; while such a person might be described as 'morally \nfulfilled' - and may even feel so, on occasion - describing someone \nwho is being frequently beaten, in solitary confinement, and/or \ntortured as 'happy' does feel like an abuse of the term, I'm afraid. \nThough I may be misunderstanding your intent. (Which is something I'm \ngood at doing, so please forgive me if I have!)\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42196C11.6070006@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-20T21:05:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm afraid I'm simply not following you here: what do you mean by \n'careless'?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nEven if you carefully specify that it's completely deterministic, the \n\"careless\" aspect stipulates just as firmly that it can't be \ndeterministic. Because the demon is outside the system, he can't \ninteract with it if it's a closed system. If he can interact with it, \nthen you have influences outside the universe affecting causality \nwithin the universe, and it's not deterministic.\n\nIf you extend your system to include the demon's interaction, then \nyou've effectively placed the demon inside the horizon of your \nsystem/universe, and thus you get the other problem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.\nYour effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe\nNow, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is \nomniscient, and we've\ncarefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only \npossible perturbing\nfactor is the self-same Demons deeds.\nHowever, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what \nhe will do, and\nwhat effects that will have, he knows himself! He knows what he \nwants or will do, and so\ncan factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.\nThe problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or \nwill be self-similar/self-fulflling.\n\nAn entirely different problem from free will.\n\n~Maru\nThe lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible.\n\nChris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon \n(well, granted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than \none. But working with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the \ndemon is inside the universe or apart from it on some higher level? \nIf the latter then either he's not available for your thought \nproblem or your universe isn't deterministic, and if the former you \nrun into the whole drawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.\n\nCivet\n\n-- \n\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential \nknowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What \neveryone knows on the other hand, so that the difference is the \ntrivial one of how it is known, that is a waste of effort to be \nconcerned about - for one cannot possibly become self-important \nthrough knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be \nable to\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I \nwill begin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final \ndesires will be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, \nthe only unkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make \nhis predictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000d01c5180d$b8dd9ce0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-21T04:06:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<42196C08.2070407@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ah! Finally, someone wonders whether I was playing word-games.\nThe answer is: I don't think so.\n[...]\nDo well-adjusted people molest and bully others?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an objective\ngoal to which one would \"adjust\". Depending on one's criteria, a\nwell-adjusted person might bully and molest. Saddam seems to have adjusted\nUday and Qusay to do that.\n\nIt is difficult for me to see how the happiness of tsunami victims on the\nother side of the planet sharing few of my genes would affect my happiness\nin an evolutionary sense.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-21T05:00:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "<42196C0D.4070803@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is interesting; I remember you bringing up virtue ethics earlier, in a \nmore alien context. It seems to fit; )\nI can't say I really like that philosphy: it seems to boil down to \nselfishness, and I've always been more of a greater\ngood -guy." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well - yes and no. It does seem very hard - to me, at least - to talk about \n'good' and 'bad' without at least at some point talking about what's good \nand bad for a particular organism. Hence empathy is a virtue because \npossesion of it to a certain degree (but not so much that it paralyses you) \nis 'good' for a member of a social species. Is that selfish? Hard to say: \nif I'm generous, I'm generous because I'm generous, not because of how it \ncontributes to my good or anyone elses. _Learning_ to be generous, on the \nother hand, is probably motivated by that kind of consideration, but I'm not \nsure if there's any ethical system that's immune from some sort of \nconsideration (except extreme moral non-naturalism, and that has it's own \nproblems [1]) of that kind. 'So, Mr. Kant, why exactly are we motivated to \nfollow the categorical imperative?'\n\n[1] Though I'm sympathetic towards it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I know a few people who can't be really happy while anyone around them is \nunhappy. Could that be a less-extreme\nexample of what your dissident is doing? More religiously, that seems very \nmuch like the bodhisattva idea, but if that's\na bad connection, a misreading of intent, please tell me." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not at all. In a related sense, it could be argued that a Christian is \nsomeone who is willing to go to Hell in order that no one has to. I can see \nwhere you're coming from, but I'm not sure happiness is the primary \nmotivator (it's probably a motivation, but not the only one) in this case. \nBut never having been in our dissident's situation - and I hope I never am \n- I can't say I know for sure (and even then, generalising from one case to \nall would perhaps be foolish). We may have to agree to disagree...\n\nOn second thoughts, if you're correct, I doubt anyone _should_ have a \nproblem with such a motivation, as it's quite clearly unselfish. Mich ink \nhas no doubt been spilled on such issues.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-21T11:45:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<42196C11.6070006@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I mean that you unwittingly included factors (demon outside the universe \nwith ability to interact with things inside the universe) that may not *say* \nin so many words that \"the universe is not deterministic\", but nonetheless \nlogically entail that it *cannot be* deterministic. Left as is, the problem \ncollapses to nonsense because by its definition it is, but cannot be, \ndeterministic. Remedies (such as they are):\n\nDrop the stipulation that the universe be deterministic. This would remove \nthe demon's means of predicting the future, which is no good for the \npurposes of the thought problem.\n\nKeep the demon outside the universe but close the system. Now the universe \ncan be deterministic, the demon can predict things in it, but can no longer \ntell you about those predictions. This too is not useful for the thought \nproblem.\n\nThe above two sort of reduce things to where no problem really exists any \nmore. The third brings in a whole new problem:\n\nBring the demon inside the universe and close the system. Now he can make \npredictions, and tell them to you. But these predictions require a full \nknowledge of the state of the universe - which now includes himself. The \ndemon must \"know\" the disposition of his own brain states - he must know the \ntotality of what he knows. So for each item X in his knowledge, the fact \nthat he knows X requires him to know (that he knows X), and this in turn \nrequires him to know (that he knows (that he knows X)), and so on in an \ninfinite regress. This isn't just a trivial abstraction. The problem is \nanalogous to the problem I mentioned of making a precise map of the \nuniverse. If the map is inside the universe, then it must include itself, \nwhich must include itself, which must include itself.\n\n[A curious aside... An abstract but almost entirely meaningless possible \nsolution to the map problem is to simply call the universe a scale map of \nitself. This requires a somewhat... flexible... concept of \"representation\". \nIf you were George Berkeley you might apply such a solution and say that the \nuniverse *is* the demon's mind. But such a demon would no longer be \nLaplace's, it would not be predicting anything, it would be making the \nfuture (and all of being) by thinking it. But in any event, this wanders \njust a bit off from the purpose of the thought problem.]\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm afraid I'm simply not following you here: what do you mean by \n'careless'?\n\nChris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Even if you carefully specify that it's completely deterministic, the \n\"careless\" aspect stipulates just as firmly that it can't be \ndeterministic. Because the demon is outside the system, he can't interact \nwith it if it's a closed system. If he can interact with it, then you have \ninfluences outside the universe affecting causality within the universe, \nand it's not deterministic.\n\nIf you extend your system to include the demon's interaction, then you've \neffectively placed the demon inside the horizon of your system/universe, \nand thus you get the other problem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The way I see it, he is outside your effective universe.\nYour effective universe + Laplace's Demon & his abode = Real Universe\nNow, the Demon can predict the effective universe, because he is \nomniscient, and we've\ncarefully specified that it is completely deterministic, the only \npossible perturbing\nfactor is the self-same Demons deeds.\nHowever, even if omnisciene didn't suffice for the Demon to know what he \nwill do, and\nwhat effects that will have, he knows himself! He knows what he wants \nor will do, and so\ncan factor himself in, and get a final equation to solve, if you will.\nThe problem is how to give data which will have a null effect, or will be \nself-similar/self-fulflling.\n\nAn entirely different problem from free will.\n\n~Maru\nThe lesson I draw is that omniscience is impossible.\n\nChris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "There is a problem with any example that drags in Laplace's demon (well, \ngranted, he's meant to be problematic). Probably more than one. But \nworking with what you've hinted at, start by asking if the demon is \ninside the universe or apart from it on some higher level? If the latter \nthen either he's not available for your thought problem or your universe \nisn't deterministic, and if the former you run into the whole \ndrawing-a-scale-map-of-the-universe deal.\n\nCivet\n\n--\n\"[W]hat everyone does not know, so that it counts as differential \nknowledge, that is a glorious thing to be concerned with. What everyone \nknows on the other hand, so that the difference is the trivial one of \nhow it is known, that is a waste of effort to be concerned about - for \none cannot possibly become self-important through knowing it.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Laplace's demon is truly omniscience no?\nThen he knows you are going to tell me, and has factored that in.\nHe will also know that you will ask for an updated prediction.\nThat too will be foreseen by his omniscience right?\nFurthermore, he will see you scurrying back to tell me.\nBut, omniscient being he is, he can see how many times you will be able \nto\nupset the temporary equilibrium of my desires, and indeed, when I will \nbegin to ignore\nyou (or ask what you are smoking and how can I synthesize suma that?).\nThat number being finite, he can easily work out what my final desires \nwill be, and give the answer\nwhich will both start the sequence and end it.\nEven better, in a deterministic universe like this, to the Demon, the \nonly unkown will be himself.\nSo he can easily choose how he will perturb the universe, and make his \npredictions on that basis\nor self-fulfilling.\nIf this is an argument, seems more like one against omnisicence.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004001c51856$d919fbe0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-02-21T12:49:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mean that you unwittingly included factors (demon outside the universe\nwith ability to interact with things inside the universe) that may not\n*say*\nin so many words that \"the universe is not deterministic\", but nonetheless\nlogically entail that it *cannot be* deterministic. Left as is, the problem\ncollapses to nonsense because by its definition it is, but cannot be,\ndeterministic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Basically, it does not take into account an Einstienian view of the universe\nin which time itself is dimension just like space. (and how could Laplace\nhave known about that?)\n\nIf the demon is truely outside the universe, then he can see time from its\nstart to its termination as easily as it can see all things operating within\nthe universe. This means the that universe does not have to be deterministic\nfor him to accurately predict the future: he has only to see what happened\nafter the choices are made rather than \"predicted\" based on any particular\n\"state\" of the universe.\n\nThis is why I think the \"computer\" was a better idea than a demon sitting\noutside the universe. A conventional computer can (theoretically) be equiped\nwith enough back-up monitoring measures to be reliably constantly aware of\nthe \"state\" of its own processes because it is not as complex as a demon.\n\nThe primary point of a computer was merely that if you had all the\ninformation at your desposal you could predict any final result. But has not\nchaos theory suggested this is impossible? Hasn't it accepted that the\ninteractions of 3 or 4 bodies on each other, let alone a cloud of bodies\ncannot be predicted for any ONE of those bodies -- that you can can only\npredict the actions of the group?\n\nGranted 3 or 4 asteroids orbiting each other do not have free will, but the\ncomputer thought-experiment presumes rational creatures ARE deterministic.\nIt presumes that if you had a computer that had all the information on the\nuniverse's current state available to it, it's predictions would be\naccurate. But what if it weren't? It might be free will or it might be a\ndemon from outside the universe influencing bodies. So you could annex the\ndemon into the universe (and all things influencing that demon in it's own\nmetaverse), but what if the computer's predictions were still inaccurate?\nThis thought experiement doesn't suggest the outcome in any way.\n\nHeck, if vibrating molecules are not deterministic, why should humans be? I\nhave made random choices about big decisions in my life. Perhaps over time\nyou can decide the odds of my decision for a particular random choice and\neven the general flow my inclinations in my random choices over time, but I\ndo not see how any computer could reliably determine my particular choices\nat any time, and so it will not know the state of the universe for future\nchoices (ad infinitum).\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705022115226eec7d8e@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-02-21T15:22:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<000d01c5180d$b8dd9ce0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, the thing is, we seek what would make - no, make it singular:\n\nI seek what would make me-as-I-am-now happy. \n\nBut, by the time I achieve it, I will no longer be as-I-am-now.\n\nThis has consequences.\n\nFor example: I know that I would be happy if I took certain chemicals. \nBut that would be me-as-I-would-be-if-I-took-them, and me-as-I-am-now \nwould not be happy in the semi-mindless state those chemicals would \ninduce, so I do not take them.\n\nFor another: If I seek what will make me-as-I-am-now happy, by the\ntime I achieve it, it will not make me happy.\n\nThe best hope for happiness, then, is one of two things:\n\n1. To learn to predict what I will become, so that I can work to \nachieve what will make me at that time happy.\n\n2. To learn to be happy with what I have to be happy with.\n\nI find the latter more probable.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"We're going to sit on Scorsese's head\"\n -- The Goodfeathers" } ] }, { "message_id": "<423D22D9.6090502@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-19T23:14:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<000d01c5180d$b8dd9ce0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nAh! Finally, someone wonders whether I was playing word-games.\nThe answer is: I don't think so.\n[...]\nDo well-adjusted people molest and bully others?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an objective\ngoal to which one would \"adjust\". Depending on one's criteria, a\nwell-adjusted person might bully and molest. Saddam seems to have adjusted\nUday and Qusay to do that.\n\nIt is difficult for me to see how the happiness of tsunami victims on the\nother side of the planet sharing few of my genes would affect my happiness\nin an evolutionary sense.\n\n~ Crush\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You wish an objective goal? Very well, I can supply one.\n\nConsider that happiness has a very strong correlation to\nthe concentrations of certain chemicals in the human species\nbrain, which is objectively measurable; consider further that\nthere are brain wave patterns which have a very strong correlation\nwith happiness, and are equally objectively measurable. These two\ntests can be concatenated for a measurement of high confidence.\n\nFind out of the set of all physical behaivours\nwhich are selectable by a particular human, the action which results in \na global maxima\nof a scalar quantity of happiness, measured dimensionlessly, with every \nhomo sapien\nweighted equally. This would be the ideal well-adjusted, but undoubtedly\nis computationally intractable to find, so practically it can be reduced to\noptimum behaivour findable in a certain finite time.\nThis pseudo-definition give you a decent start for what 'well-adjusted' is?\nIt isn't that it can't be well-defined, its that no one bothers since we \nall know it intuitively.\n\n~Maru\n$ mount /world /proc | ps -aux | grep *.hs | sort -d >> happiness.txt \n&& more happiness.txt\nunix tomfoolery :) probably should grep for last line, and echo as \nsuggested 'well-adjusted'\nperson, but that'd need variabless and is no fun." } ] }, { "message_id": "<423D2498.7070500@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-19T23:22:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\n\nWell - yes and no. It does seem very hard - to me, at least - to talk \nabout 'good' and 'bad' without at least at some point talking about \nwhat's good and bad for a particular organism. Hence empathy is a \nvirtue because possesion of it to a certain degree (but not so much \nthat it paralyses you) is 'good' for a member of a social species. Is \nthat selfish? Hard to say: if I'm generous, I'm generous because I'm \ngenerous, not because of how it contributes to my good or anyone \nelses. _Learning_ to be generous, on the other hand, is probably \nmotivated by that kind of consideration, but I'm not sure if there's \nany ethical system that's immune from some sort of consideration \n(except extreme moral non-naturalism, and that has it's own problems \n[1]) of that kind. 'So, Mr. Kant, why exactly are we motivated to \nfollow the categorical imperative?'\n\n[1] Though I'm sympathetic towards it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My own brand of utilitarianism would say that following the categorical \nimperative will increase happiness at large, and eventually result i \nlarge gains for myself in addition. 'Do well by doing good' in a long \nrun sense. That, and it is rationally desirable for one's beliefs to at \nthe very least be consistent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I know a few people who can't be really happy while anyone around \nthem is unhappy. Could that be a less-extreme\nexample of what your dissident is doing? More religiously, that \nseems very much like the bodhisattva idea, but if that's\na bad connection, a misreading of intent, please tell me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not at all. In a related sense, it could be argued that a Christian \nis someone who is willing to go to Hell in order that no one has to. \nI can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure happiness is the \nprimary motivator (it's probably a motivation, but not the only one) \nin this case. But never having been in our dissident's situation - \nand I hope I never am - I can't say I know for sure (and even then, \ngeneralising from one case to all would perhaps be foolish). We may \nhave to agree to disagree..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, you are thinking of Jesus there ; ) But that is a curious view of \nChristians. I should like you to expand on that. I'd have argued that a \nChristian is someone who doesn't want to suffer the eternal torment of \nHell, and so believes in Jesus and does what their church tells'em." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On second thoughts, if you're correct, I doubt anyone _should_ have a \nproblem with such a motivation, as it's quite clearly unselfish. Mich \nink has no doubt been spilled on such issues.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Arrgh. The point was that even apparently unselfish, principled actions \ncan be as well, if not better, understood as enlightened selfishness as \nwell. But fortunately no ink need die for our debate. No, 'tis the \nelectrons and phospors who shall suffer.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<423D2675.4000407@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-19T23:30:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "<004001c51856$d919fbe0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nBasically, it does not take into account an Einstienian view of the universe\nin which time itself is dimension just like space. (and how could Laplace\nhave known about that?)\n\nIf the demon is truely outside the universe, then he can see time from its\nstart to its termination as easily as it can see all things operating within\nthe universe. This means the that universe does not have to be deterministic\nfor him to accurately predict the future: he has only to see what happened\nafter the choices are made rather than \"predicted\" based on any particular\n\"state\" of the universe.\n\nThis is why I think the \"computer\" was a better idea than a demon sitting\noutside the universe. A conventional computer can (theoretically) be equiped\nwith enough back-up monitoring measures to be reliably constantly aware of\nthe \"state\" of its own processes because it is not as complex as a demon.\n\nThe primary point of a computer was merely that if you had all the\ninformation at your desposal you could predict any final result. But has not\nchaos theory suggested this is impossible? Hasn't it accepted that the\ninteractions of 3 or 4 bodies on each other, let alone a cloud of bodies\ncannot be predicted for any ONE of those bodies -- that you can can only\npredict the actions of the group?\n\nGranted 3 or 4 asteroids orbiting each other do not have free will, but the\ncomputer thought-experiment presumes rational creatures ARE deterministic.\nIt presumes that if you had a computer that had all the information on the\nuniverse's current state available to it, it's predictions would be\naccurate. But what if it weren't? It might be free will or it might be a\ndemon from outside the universe influencing bodies. So you could annex the\ndemon into the universe (and all things influencing that demon in it's own\nmetaverse), but what if the computer's predictions were still inaccurate?\nThis thought experiement doesn't suggest the outcome in any way.\n\nHeck, if vibrating molecules are not deterministic, why should humans be? I\nhave made random choices about big decisions in my life. Perhaps over time\nyou can decide the odds of my decision for a particular random choice and\neven the general flow my inclinations in my random choices over time, but I\ndo not see how any computer could reliably determine my particular choices\nat any time, and so it will not know the state of the universe for future\nchoices (ad infinitum).\n\n~ Crush\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the proofs for the n-body and 3-body orbital mechanics\nproblems actually stated that you'd need infinite processing power\nto solve them exactly. Which we can postulate a computer sitting out\nside the universe having. And also one of the primary discoveries of chaos\ntheory was how quickly processes spread out amongst the lagrange space\nand thusly how sensitive to the precision of initial information. It is \nmore\nan engineering result, not a true limitative result like Godel, or \nSchrodinger.\nBut also remember the emulation principle, and remember also the fact\nthat even 'chaotic' systems are deterministic; run the equation with \nthe same\nseed, get the same answer.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<423D2A1B.1030506@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-19T23:45:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\n...\n\nBring the demon inside the universe and close the system. Now he can \nmake predictions, and tell them to you. But these predictions require \na full knowledge of the state of the universe - which now includes \nhimself. The demon must \"know\" the disposition of his own brain states \n- he must know the totality of what he knows. So for each item X in \nhis knowledge, the fact that he knows X requires him to know (that he \nknows X), and this in turn requires him to know (that he knows (that \nhe knows X)), and so on in an infinite regress. This isn't just a \ntrivial abstraction. The problem is analogous to the problem I \nmentioned of making a precise map of the universe. If the map is \ninside the universe, then it must include itself, which must include \nitself, which must include itself.\n\n[A curious aside... An abstract but almost entirely meaningless \npossible solution to the map problem is to simply call the universe a \nscale map of itself. This requires a somewhat... flexible... concept \nof \"representation\". If you were George Berkeley you might apply such \na solution and say that the universe *is* the demon's mind. But such a \ndemon would no longer be Laplace's, it would not be predicting \nanything, it would be making the future (and all of being) by thinking \nit. But in any event, this wanders just a bit off from the purpose of \nthe thought problem.]\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you ever heard of a replicating von Neumann machine? I mention \nthem because they at first sight\nto suffer the same reflectivity problem as LaPlace's demon. But the \nsolution is similar to Berkeley's\nbut different: at one time the machines is storing its data, but this \ndata is also simultaneously processed as a program\nwhich copies that data (in the software version). No physical ones have \nbeen built (the closure problem:\ngetting a machine to derive\nand develop all its resources and manufacture all its parts and also to \nbe robust enough to actually work.)\nI think isomorphisms are the key here.\n\nBut if you do not like that explanation, consider a demon equivalent to \nan angel: it can be any size it wants.\nAnd since by default this universe is continuous, the demon can make as \nmany brains as he wants and fit each in\nan infinitely small space. Now, since the demon has a visible head and \npresumably brain for me to converse with\nand receive predictions from, it follows that it posses infinite amount \nof brain; I suspect an infinite brain could\ncontain and hold that 'infinite regress'. In fact, an infinite number of \ninfinite regresses.\n\n~Maru\nDat kwazy set theory! So counterintuitive." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T01:46:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing, Laplace, and Thread Necromancy", "in_reply_to": "<423D2A1B.1030506@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Have you ever heard of a replicating von Neumann machine? I mention them \nbecause they at first sight\nto suffer the same reflectivity problem as LaPlace's demon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, you misunderstand the problem with the demon. The demon is not \n\"practically impossible\", it is logically impossible - any solution to it \nwould require the breaking of the same logical laws that are required for \nyou or I to think about the problem in the first place." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if you do not like that explanation, consider a demon equivalent to an \nangel: it can be any size it wants.\nAnd since by default this universe is continuous, the demon can make as \nmany brains as he wants and fit each in\nan infinitely small space. Now, since the demon has a visible head and \npresumably brain for me to converse with\nand receive predictions from, it follows that it posses infinite amount of \nbrain; I suspect an infinite brain could\ncontain and hold that 'infinite regress'. In fact, an infinite number of \ninfinite regresses." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It can continue to make brains to its heart's content; those brains will all \nbe present *within* the universe and thus require representation. The \ncomputational ability of the demon is theoretically infinite, but it is an \ninfinity that is a sort of order of magnitude smaller than the infinity that \nwould be required to calculate itself into the picture (along with the \nuniverse, of course). This will always be the case; any addition of \"brains\" \nincreases the complexity of the universe accordingly.\n\n-- Civet\n\"1 The world is all that is the case.\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T02:09:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<423D22D9.6090502@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an objective\ngoal to which one would \"adjust\". Depending on one's criteria, a\nwell-adjusted person might bully and molest. Saddam seems to have adjusted\nUday and Qusay to do that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You wish an objective goal? Very well, I can supply one.\n\nConsider that happiness has a very strong correlation to\nthe concentrations of certain chemicals in the human species\nbrain, which is objectively measurable; consider further that\nthere are brain wave patterns which have a very strong correlation\nwith happiness, and are equally objectively measurable. These two\ntests can be concatenated for a measurement of high confidence." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This amounts to an objective test of a subjective goal.\n\nAnother way of putting the matter is this:\nThere are disconnections at a couple of levels that require certain \nsubjective assumptions to bridge. To start with - and this I think is the \nessence of the objection Crush was raising, which has not been answered here \n- do you really think that what we consider \"well-adjusted\" is objectively \ncorrelated to happiness? Individuals vary as to which stimuli produce \n\"happiness\" in their brains, as do (necessarily) societies made up of such \nindividuals. The totality of existent humans, taken as a whole, is no less \nvariable, from moment to moment.\n\nAnother is the association of happiness with an objective goal; there is \nnothing that objectively makes happiness a more worthy goal than any other \nconceivable goal. And in fact, for any non-trivial definition of happiness, \nit is evident that even if we accept happiness as a goal, we make numerous \nexceptions to this rule as a matter of course. This is evident in the \ncommon-sense observation that that which makes us happy is not always that \nwhich is best for us.\n\n-- Civet" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T02:41:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness,\n\tand even more Thread Necromancy", "in_reply_to": "<423D2498.7070500@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't even remember the original message being quoted here.\n\nQuoting Iorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "'So, Mr. Kant, why exactly are we motivated to follow the categorical \nimperative?'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't recally Kant having anything to say about how or why anyone *does* \nfollow the categorical imperativel. For him the question starts, and after \nmany twists and turns ends, with a matter of why we *ought* to follow the \ncategorical imperative, and this is (he thinks) because it is unavoidably \nconsistent with Reason. [If it weren't, it wouldn't be the Categorical \nImperative. No comment on that.]\n\nMaru:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My own brand of utilitarianism would say that following the categorical \nimperative will increase happiness at large, and eventually result i large \ngains for myself in addition. 'Do well by doing good' in a long run sense. \nThat, and it is rationally desirable for one's beliefs to at the very least \nbe consistent." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is a fundamental tension you are missing between *any* kind of view \nwhich acknowledges a \"categorical imperative\" (a system based on a \nparticular *duty*) and *any* system like utilitarianism which relies on \n*results* as a justification.\n\nWith utilitarianism, the ends ultimately justify the means. So if, on any \ngiven specific occasion, it will produce a better result to disobey the \n\"categorical imperative\", then there is no question - you disobey the \nimperative. In such a situation the \"rule\" is purely superfluous, because \nyou obey it or disobey it as the occasion demands.\n\nThere is an attempt to reconcile these two points of view, called \"rule \nutilitarianism\", which you could probably google to good effect, and I \nsuspect you would view it favorably. The problem is that rule utilitarianism \nwalks a rather tenuous line, and it tends to collapse completely into either \npure act utilitarianism or else pure duty-based ethics if you really start \nrunning it through its paces in thought problems." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, you are thinking of Jesus there ; ) But that is a curious view of \nChristians. I should like you to expand on that. I'd have argued that a \nChristian is someone who doesn't want to suffer the eternal torment of \nHell, and so believes in Jesus and does what their church tells'em." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suspect that here there is a problem between \"Christian\" as defined as an \nactual follower of Christ, as opposed to \"Christian\" as \"your average member \nof a Christian church\". The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but \nthe first does not require the second, nor does the second require the \nfirst." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Arrgh. The point was that even apparently unselfish, principled actions can \nbe as well, if not better, understood as enlightened selfishness as well. \nBut fortunately no ink need die for our debate. No, 'tis the electrons and \nphospors who shall suffer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This really is a debate of its own that is far too long to present here. \nYes, there is something to your intuition. But when you think it out, the \nnotion of \"selfish\" that would be required to absorb *all* altruistic action \nends up being trivial to the point where it disappears as a useful category. \nTo really bring this point home I would recommend an article called \n\"Psychological Egoism\" by Joel Feinberg. Unfortunately I can't find an \nelectronic version of it, so you'd have to find a tree/ink-killing version.\n\n--Civet\n\"Now we would have to say that all actions are selfish; but, in addition, we \nwould want to say that there are two different kinds of selfish actions, \nthose which regard the interests of others and those which disregard the \nintrests of others... After a while, we might even invent two new words, \nperhaps 'selfitic' and 'unselfitic,' to distinguish the two important \nclasses of 'selfish' actions. Then we would be right back where we \nstarted...\" -- Joel Feinberg" } ] }, { "message_id": "<423DA1C8.3040009@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T08:16:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Chris wrote:\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an \nobjective\ngoal to which one would \"adjust\". Depending on one's criteria, a\nwell-adjusted person might bully and molest. Saddam seems to have \nadjusted\nUday and Qusay to do that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You wish an objective goal? Very well, I can supply one.\n\nConsider that happiness has a very strong correlation to\nthe concentrations of certain chemicals in the human species\nbrain, which is objectively measurable; consider further that\nthere are brain wave patterns which have a very strong correlation\nwith happiness, and are equally objectively measurable. These two\ntests can be concatenated for a measurement of high confidence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This amounts to an objective test of a subjective goal.\n\nAnother way of putting the matter is this:\nThere are disconnections at a couple of levels that require certain \nsubjective assumptions to bridge. To start with - and this I think is \nthe essence of the objection Crush was raising, which has not been \nanswered here - do you really think that what we consider \n\"well-adjusted\" is objectively correlated to happiness? Individuals \nvary as to which stimuli produce \"happiness\" in their brains, as do \n(necessarily) societies made up of such individuals. The totality of \nexistent humans, taken as a whole, is no less variable, from moment to \nmoment." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not that much. Just as humans largely disagree on what is beautiful, yet \nrepeatedly show agreements and correlations of ~.8, even when from \nentirely different cultures and ethnic groups, so too the 'totality' of \nhumanity's happiness can be meaningfully worked with. And I do consider \n'well-adjustedness' to be correlated with happiness. Perfectly? No, of \ncourse not. We are beings who possess limited data and processing power, \nand stricken with numerous biases, and just plain wrong heuristics, \nprogrammed in by evolution or otherwise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Another is the association of happiness with an objective goal; there \nis nothing that objectively makes happiness a more worthy goal than \nany other conceivable goal. And in fact, for any non-trivial \ndefinition of happiness, it is evident that even if we accept \nhappiness as a goal, we make numerous exceptions to this rule as a \nmatter of course. This is evident in the common-sense observation that \nthat which makes us happy is not always that which is best for us.\n\n-- Civet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We must build our ethical systems somewhere; the system of deductions \nand ethical theorems/facts must rest on some axioms (or be utterly \nuseless). An axiom which we feel with our very minds, which is shared \nby the overwhelming majority of sentient beings, and humans, which can\nbe objectively measured, seems to me a pretty good axiom, with much more \nvalue to it than any merely arbitrary and randomly selected goal.\nAnd as I said, we do not act solely on the basis of short-term returns, \nor even on long-term returns that accrue to only ourselves: we want the \nbest of things for everyone.\n\n~Maru\ntho' this is not the best of all possible worlds, perhaps we can steer \nthere." } ] }, { "message_id": "<423DA98B.2080908@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T08:49:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness, and even more Thread\n\tNecromancy", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nI don't even remember the original message being quoted here." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah... Sorry about that. Sometimes it takes me a while to work up the \nwill to reply." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maru:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My own brand of utilitarianism would say that following the \ncategorical imperative will increase happiness at large, and \neventually result i large gains for myself in addition. 'Do well by \ndoing good' in a long run sense. That, and it is rationally \ndesirable for one's beliefs to at the very least be consistent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is a fundamental tension you are missing between *any* kind of \nview which acknowledges a \"categorical imperative\" (a system based on \na particular *duty*) and *any* system like utilitarianism which relies \non *results* as a justification." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I haven't crossed the line there- notice I justified the imperative as a \nheuristic, a rule which more often than not will work better than random \nchoices; it is justified as something which will lead to good. Obviously \nif I have overriding data I'll do something which seems more likely to \nhelp. I haven't adopted the 'duty' part of the imperative. I don't like \nduty systems- not amenable to rational thought, and can lead to results \ntotally diametric to my own desired results (\"Recruits! It is your \nsolemn patriotic duty to exterminate all life on this god-forsaken \nglobe! Why? Your duty is to follow orders, not ask why! Fall out!\" etc.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "With utilitarianism, the ends ultimately justify the means. So if, on \nany given specific occasion, it will produce a better result to \ndisobey the \"categorical imperative\", then there is no question - you \ndisobey the imperative. In such a situation the \"rule\" is purely \nsuperfluous, because you obey it or disobey it as the occasion demands.\n\nThere is an attempt to reconcile these two points of view, called \n\"rule utilitarianism\", which you could probably google to good effect, \nand I suspect you would view it favorably. The problem is that rule \nutilitarianism walks a rather tenuous line, and it tends to collapse \ncompletely into either pure act utilitarianism or else pure duty-based \nethics if you really start running it through its paces in thought \nproblems." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I know of rule utilitarianism, and while I am deeply sympathetic to its \naims of formulating a utilitarianism suitable for fallible or even \nmalicious humans, I do not think it has come up with the right mix of \nrules, methods and heuristics necessary. But its goal of developing a \nutilitarianism that only ractchets upward never downward is nevertheless \nI feel, possible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This really is a debate of its own that is far too long to present \nhere. Yes, there is something to your intuition. But when you think it \nout, the notion of \"selfish\" that would be required to absorb *all* \naltruistic action ends up being trivial to the point where it \ndisappears as a useful category. To really bring this point home I \nwould recommend an article called \"Psychological Egoism\" by Joel \nFeinberg. Unfortunately I can't find an electronic version of it, so \nyou'd have to find a tree/ink-killing version." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That would be in /\"Reason and Responsibility: Read?ings in Some Basic \nProblems of Philosophy\"/\nright?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--Civet\n\"Now we would have to say that all actions are selfish; but, in \naddition, we would want to say that there are two different kinds of \nselfish actions, those which regard the interests of others and those \nwhich disregard the intrests of others... After a while, we might even \ninvent two new words, perhaps 'selfitic' and 'unselfitic,' to \ndistinguish the two important classes of 'selfish' actions. Then we \nwould be right back where we started...\" -- Joel Feinberg" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not all actions are selfish- people make mistakes sometimes.\n\n~Maru\nman, there has got to be a catchier, easier to spell name for utilitarianism" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-20T10:34:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<423DA1C8.3040009@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an \nobjective goal to which one would \"adjust\". " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The problem of defining good and evil has not been exactly **unexamined** \nthrough history. Within the context of TWK, \"well-adjusted\" = \"following \nthe pattern of the Overcyns\". " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We must build our ethical systems somewhere; the system of deductions and \nethical theorems/facts must rest on some axioms (or be utterly useless). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed, you can set computer programs playing games against each other and \nthey will evolve morals. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-20T17:13:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<423DA98B.2080908@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Before getting to the potentially on-topic part of things, a couple points I \nfeel need to be made:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "seems more likely to help. I haven't adopted the 'duty' part of the \nimperative. I don't like duty systems- not amenable to rational thought, \nand can lead to results totally diametric to my own desired results \n(\"Recruits! It is your solemn patriotic duty to exterminate all life on \nthis god-forsaken globe! Why? Your duty is to follow orders, not ask why! \nFall out!\" etc.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a mischaracterization of what \"duty\" means in a duty-based ethical \nsystem. Kant's system, for example, was all about rational thought. Most \nduty-based systems are characterized simply by a deep respect for some kind \nof \"rights\" that they (for various reasons) believe an individual to have. \nWhich is just to say that while the results-oriented person is usually out \nthere looking for ways to positively maximize things according to some \nideal, the duty-oriented person is usually primarily concerned with the \nthings they should *not* do (rules against harming others).\n\nThe potential for nastyness you point out is a possibility that arises for \nany moral system that tries to be \"objective\" (and both utilitarianism and \nduty-based ethics do this); the main difference will just be the rhetoric \nemployed. (\"Fret not, citizens, sometimes individuals like yourselves must \nbe sacrificed for the good of the state.\") It's sort of an inherent risk, \nbecause the claim that morals are objective puts them somehow \"out there\" in \nthe world rather than \"in here\" with your conscience; it implies that if an \nauthority figure sees a particular action as right, and your culture \napproves that judgment, then if you see things differently you must simply \nbe mistaken, your dissenting view is not likely to be respected." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I know of rule utilitarianism, and while I am deeply sympathetic to its \naims of formulating a utilitarianism suitable for fallible or even \nmalicious humans, I do not think it has come up with the right mix of \nrules, methods and heuristics necessary. But its goal of developing a \nutilitarianism that only ractchets upward never downward is nevertheless I \nfeel, possible." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well from what you've said, the type of rule utilitarianism you would \napprove of really collapses into a sort of act utilitarianism, augmented by \nrules of thumb (for situations where you're uncertain, or where quick \njudgments are required)... so it really loses its intended purpose in that \ncontext. But this isn't a problem specific to YOUR perspective - this is \njust why it's debated whether such a distinct thing as \"rule utilitarianism\" \nis even possible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That would be in /\"Reason and Responsibility: Read­ings in Some Basic \nProblems of Philosophy\"/\nright?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or \"Ethical Theory\" by Pojman, but really you could probably find it in any \nrecent ethics textbook.\n\nNow, to drag this whole deal into something that's slightly more on-topic:\n\nThis has been done to death from certain perspectives, but I am interested \nin the reasons *why* we let Severian off as lightly as we generally do. The \nguy is a mass-murderer. In bringing the New Sun, he willfully killed more \ninnocent people than Hitler. Yet, even if we're inclined to say that we \ndon't \"approve\" of Severian or his actions in various ways, we generally \ndon't talk about him in a way that really takes this very seriously.\n\nLooking at it from a results-oriented perspective (utilitarianism, if you \nlike, but any such perspective will do) his actions are not only justified, \nthey are unproblematic. A \"moral jury\" of utilitarians would, in theory, not \njust find Severian \"not guilty\" of any wrongdoing - they would dismiss the \ncase out of hand, Severian need feel no remorse because he did precisely the \nright thing. And yet most of us would intuitively say that to contemplate \nkilling an entire world without so much as batting an eyelash is deeply \npsychopathic.\n\nFinding some kind of rule or duty that would justify Severian's action is a \nlittle more difficult, but possible. Such a perspective is a little more \nintuitive... Severian broke an important rule (and should feel bad about \nthat), but only to avoid breaking an even more important rule (which thus \nexcuses him from punishment/sanction). In such a case the moral court might \nfind Severian technically guilty, but pronounce no sentence. And yet, aren't \nwe still taking what Severian did a little too lightly?\n\nSeverian's defense is that the old world had to be destroyed to make way for \nthe new; the rebirth of the planet/race unfortunately requires the death of \nthe old. But isn't this precisely the rhetoric used by tyrants and \ndemagogues to justify horrific crimes? The old degenerate society, they say, \nneeds to die in order to bring about a rebirth, a new order. Their vision of \na new utopia - perhaps advanced perfectly sincerely - requires a sacrifice, \na cleansing of the old ways: blood and fire. Thinking of it this way are we \nlikely to condone a modern-day Severian who comes to us claiming that we all \nneed to die to bring about some future paradise? When we bring it closer to \nhome, without the benefit of hindsight (knowing that it will, after all, \nwork out for the best in the end), what we see is the case of one man who \ntakes the lives of billions in his hands based on his own notion of what \nneeds to be done - and this is a person who freely admits that he's not even \nsure if he's sane any more.\n\nSo a third perspective here is to find Severian guilty and hold him fully \naccountable; he should be punished for his horrific crimes, and certainly \nnot looked on with approval. Note that this doesn't preclude us for having \nsome sympathy/understanding for the character: Severian was perhaps acting \non a deeply felt conviction, a religious or spiritual principle rather than \nan ethical one. If so then perhaps (if his religious impulse was correct) he \nwill be vindicated in a Higher Court, but as for this world, we can only \nlook upon the man with horror.\n\nI think that variations of these three ways of looking at things probably \ncover most of the ways we would tend to treat a human being who had done \nwhat Severian did. But I don't think that any of them quite match the actual \nreaction most of us have to Severian's character. I think that we ultimately \nexempt him from deep judgment because, in some way, we don't feel that he \n*could* have done otherwise. And you can only blame someone for doing \nsomething if they actually have a choice.\n\nWe get this impression that Severian has no free will in this particular \nmatter, it seems, from the fact that the narrator displays a singular lack \nof doubt about what he's doing (and yet, does not come off as a fanatic \neither). The narrator speaks as if under the assumption that the reader \ncould not possibly even doubt the rightness of this action, it simply can't \nbe questioned. This much may seem trivially obvious, I don't know, but I am \nleading up to a general question about just how we should take this.\n\nOne way to look at it is that Severian, as an author, is deliberately using \nthis literary device to attempt to keep us from asking him to justify his \nactions (presumably because he can't). Nobody seems to really want to treat \nthe book and the character as if this is all there is to it, though. So what \nis *Wolfe* trying to do? It would seem uncharacteristic of him to be making \na veiled attack on the notion of free will. At least not as it applies to \nhumans. Is the answer just that we intuitively accept that Severian, as the \nConciliator, *isn't* human? To a certain extent it is easy for us to see him \nas a sort of cog in the celestial machine, a sort of angel (like Tzadkiel) \nwith his own destined role to play, and this is prepared for us quite early \non, in the passages about Talos's play. But it seems to me that this can't \nbe all there is to it, because in every other way we *do* accept Severian as \nhuman. This paints a very strange picture. Are we to think of Severian as a \nman or not? And if we do think of him as a man, what sort of strange view of \nfree will are we embracing in doing so?\n\nApologies for the long-windedness, but to make up for it I will try to sit \ndown and be quiet now.\n-- Civet" } ] }, { "message_id": "<003801c52dd5$1a9eb5e0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-20T21:16:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What is your definition of \"well-adjusted\"? The word implies an\nobjective goal to which one would \"adjust\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The problem of defining good and evil has not been exactly **unexamined** \nthrough history." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's true. And I don't think we should jettison all that examination with \nthe idea that all choices are merely the pursuit of \"happiness\" which is \ndefined as \"that which we pursue\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Within the context of TWK, \"well-adjusted\" = \"following the pattern of the \nOvercyns\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And (ideally) the Overcyns follow the pattern of the beings of Kleos." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-20T23:46:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<003801c52dd5$1a9eb5e0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James Wynn writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's true. And I don't think we should jettison all that examination \nwith the idea that all choices are merely the pursuit of \"happiness\" which \nis defined as \"that which we pursue\". " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Within the context of TWK, \"well-adjusted\" = \"following the pattern of \nthe Overcyns\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And (ideally) the Overcyns follow the pattern of the beings of Kleos." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nBut, this isn't even beng mentioned in the context of this discussion. \n\nWhy hasn't it come up? \n\nI am an Odinist - It's my religion. I have some problems with the pictures \nof the Overcyns in WTK, and I think I can now define the reason. \n\nOdinism is not actually a supernaturalist religion: it conceives of the gods \nas human archetypes, or at least that's what we say nowadays. \n\nI don't know if the original gothis saw Thor as genuinely creating the \nthunder by throwing his hammer, but in one very real sense they believed the \nsame as us modern Odinists. They **didn't** believe in Kleos or Elysium. \nThey didn't think that standards for right and virtue came down from on \nhigh. That belief came later (with the development of monotheism). \n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050321104034.72813.qmail@web54205.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "nastler", "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk" }, "date": "2005-03-21T02:40:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This email is just polite applause from the gallery.\nAfter weeks of struggling through discussions on\n“Ethical Theory”, (interesting but not much of a\nspectator sport for the layman), I feel a sense of\npay-off after Civets last post.\n“Judging Severian” is a great topic and I’m hoping it\nsticks around a bit. Your three ethical judgements\npossible on Sev seem about right.\n1.\tHe may be a psycho but he done what had to be done.\n2.\tHe took a liberty, but the end justifies the means.\n3.\tHe is evil and billions died cause of what he did.\n(Footnote)\nBut, as you say, we readers perceive that Sev is a\ntool (“the tongs by which we are held?”) and judging\nhim may not be valid. The higher powers (whether\ndivine or secular hardly matter to the average\nUrthling) decide our fate according to their own\nvalues and objectives." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From a philosophical Urthlings point of view, it could" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "be argued that maybe Typhon tries to wriggle out of\nthe grips by doing the “right” thing (evacuation) for\nthe “wrong” reason (continued divine monarchy) but he\nis cast down so Sev can do the “wrong” thing (Global\ntsunami) for the “right” reason (avoid ice future).\nAnd is Sev comparable with one of us “true men” from\nthe “free” world? Well, if “all the world’s a stage”\nthen we are ALL cogs in that machine, designed to play\nour part as directed or (presumably) be replaced if\nour improvisations get out of hand. As Civet explained\nto me in a post last year, rebellion is neither\npossible nor desirable; “the show must go on” I\nsuppose. Whether the director is divine and\nintelligent or secular and emergent, our “bit-part”\nposition remains the same. Therefore, freewill equals\nillusion.\n\nDoes Wolfe not say something like \"best just to copy\nthe higher powers cause they are closer to God\", with\na PS that we can also hope they are not so corrupting\nan influence as be believes us to be on our own “lf”\nWell, with no philosophical tools to handle this I\ndon't see how a \"monkey see, monkey do\" approach leads\nto either ethical codes or free will. What do I know?\nScientists studying the brain also seem to find\nreasons to doubt the concept of \"free will\". So I\nsuppose whatever way we cut it, we are a manipulated\nspecies.\n\nOh well, thanks to Civet for a great post, and all the\nbest for the Vernal equinox celebrations to everyone,\nNastler\n(hoping the Philosopher Kings would get on with it and\nedict the “few simple rules” for a more ethical world,\nso the rest of us can all stop having to worry about\nit.)\n\nFootnote. This reminds me of when people want to\ndiscuss war (Iraq or generally) with me. I become\nparalysed by an inability to predict good outcomes\n(e.g. global liberal democracy and human rights)\ncoming from bad actions (e.g. bombing a family home).\nThe promised land out of sight as I focus on the\nvalley of death through which we are led. No doubt I’d\nbe an “Ice future” Urth philosopher, learning about\nthermodynamics from Master Ash as I denounce Abia with\nt-shirts and street theatre. Michael Ignatieff's\n“Political ethics in an age of terror” has been put on\nmy read list in an attempt to understand the\nrealpolitik from my position of cosy civil\nlibertarianism. I can’t say I’m looking forward to it\ntoo much\n\n\n“Pelagic-dwelling, Mind-controlling, Alien Gods” No\nthanks!?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T06:13:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "<423D2498.7070500@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My own brand of utilitarianism would say that following the categorical \nimperative will increase happiness at large, and eventually result i large \ngains for myself in addition. 'Do well by doing good' in a long run sense. \nThat, and it is rationally desirable for one's beliefs to at the very least \nbe consistent." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's an example from a book of ethical dillemas [1] on how following \nKant's categorical imperative regarding honesty made a female correspondant \nof his (and probably by extension eceryone around her) extremely _unhappy_. \nUtilitarianism has a place in any well thought out moral philosophy, but it \nprobably shouldn't be the only consideration. Happiness at large tends to \nmean the happiness of the majority in the eyes of many [2]; this can lead to \npeople suggesting some fairly twisted things.\n\n(At a risk of introducing a political argument into the thread, I'd ask \npeople to examine the position of the leader of the British Opposition \ntowards the travelling minority, and whether it'd be easier for him to make \nhis case were he a utilitarian.)\n\n[1] Alas, I've lent it to a friend. I'll check the title and author if \nanyone's interested.\n\n[2] Though I have no doubt that you're too sensible to make that leap :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I know a few people who can't be really happy while anyone around them is \nunhappy. Could that be a less-extreme\nexample of what your dissident is doing? More religiously, that seems \nvery much like the bodhisattva idea, but if that's\na bad connection, a misreading of intent, please tell me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not at all. In a related sense, it could be argued that a Christian is \nsomeone who is willing to go to Hell in order that no one has to. I can \nsee where you're coming from, but I'm not sure happiness is the primary \nmotivator (it's probably a motivation, but not the only one) in this case. \n But never having been in our dissident's situation - and I hope I never \nam - I can't say I know for sure (and even then, generalising from one \ncase to all would perhaps be foolish). We may have to agree to \ndisagree..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, you are thinking of Jesus there ; ) But that is a curious view of \nChristians. I should like you to expand on that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's an observation of some theologian somewhere, passesd on to me by my \nDad, who's an Anglican minister. I don't claim it to be the be all and \nend-all of the religion, but it does fit rather well with the idea of \nliving life as an imitation of Christ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd have argued that a Christian is someone who doesn't want to suffer the \neternal torment of Hell, and so believes in Jesus and does what their \nchurch tells'em." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's no actual set definition of what a Christian believes (bar the \nNician (sp?) creed, and maybe not even that, if you're a liberal Anglican). \n There has been, since the inception of the religion, a strand that \nbelieves that either\n\na) No one is in Hell, since God is merciful\nb) Hell is temporary, intended to reform, for the same reason.\n\nIt's called Universalism; there's some textual evidence that Paul was one \n[3]. It lost steam once most people in the West were Christain, largly \nbecause the worry that Uncle Bob, the virtuous worshipper of Zeus, would \nhave somewhat unfairly wound up in Hell became less of an issue.\n\nIt's tempting to suggest that someone whose primary motivation for being a \nChristian was fear of Hell probably wouldn't do a good job of escaping Hell \n(if indeed, it exists and there's anyone in there) becase they have the \nwrong motivation for what they do.\n\n[3] On the other hand, there's textual evidence for almost any view of Paul \nthat you wish to put forwards." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On second thoughts, if you're correct, I doubt anyone _should_ have a \nproblem with such a motivation, as it's quite clearly unselfish. Mich ink \nhas no doubt been spilled on such issues.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Arrgh. The point was that even apparently unselfish, principled actions can \nbe as well, if not better, understood as enlightened selfishness as well. \nBut fortunately no ink need die for our debate. No, 'tis the electrons and \nphospors who shall suffer." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think my chief problem with this is that they could probably be understood \njust as well in a Jungian or Freudian outlook, depending taste - they all \ntend to reduce motivations to one primary thing, power, sex, happiness, \nwhereas we always have several, including those we aren't aware of. Also, \nnot having access to people's inner thoughts, we can't know.\n\nI'd like to observe that to a certain extent, I'm one of those people you \ndescribe; the problem is - my inability to be happy while those around me \nare unhappy doeas not imply that, in order to do what I must to make them \nhappy, I'll wind up happy. It just means that if they're unhappy, so am I.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T06:34:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial and the eccentric Mr. K.", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm...\n\nThis is reminiscent of Kierkegaard's [1] problem of Abraham in 'Fear and \nTrembling'.\n\nThe problem being:\n\n1) Abraham is credited with being moral and the father of the faith.\n\n2) He almost sacrificed his son because God told him to.\n\n3) If _I_ did that, I'd be regarded as slightly psychotic.\n\n4) So why is 1) regarded as true?\n\nHe goes through several iteratations of 'what was Abraham thinking?', none \nof which are in fact adequate, and then, in order to illustrate what he \nthinks was going on, outlines what some see as a rather extreme 'divine \ncommand' ethic [2].\n\nWe seem to have an analogous (right down to the tricksyness of the authour) \nProblem of Severian:\n\n1) Severian is treated sympathetically.\n\n2) He destroyed the world for a highier good.\n\n3) If _I_ did that, I'd be regarded as very psychotic.\n\n4) So why is 1) regarded as true?\n\nIorwerth\n\n\n[1] Slightly miserable Danish theologian and founder of Existensialism. \nTreating his works is slightly difficult, because he wrote most of them \nunder pseudonims and in them expressed ideas that he didn't quite agree \nwith, in the hopes that the reader whould understand by ironic implication. \nHence the vast number of mutually contradictory interpreations of said \nworks.\n\n[2] But only on a literal reading of the text. Which is foolish. See [1]." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Chris\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think that variations of these three ways of looking at things probably \ncover most of the ways we would tend to treat a human being who had done \nwhat Severian did. But I don't think that any of them quite match the \nactual reaction most of us have to Severian's character. I think that we \nultimately exempt him from deep judgment because, in some way, we don't \nfeel that he *could* have done otherwise. And you can only blame someone \nfor doing something if they actually have a choice.\n\nWe get this impression that Severian has no free will in this particular \nmatter, it seems, from the fact that the narrator displays a singular lack \nof doubt about what he's doing (and yet, does not come off as a fanatic \neither). The narrator speaks as if under the assumption that the reader \ncould not possibly even doubt the rightness of this action, it simply can't \nbe questioned. This much may seem trivially obvious, I don't know, but I am \nleading up to a general question about just how we should take this.\n\nOne way to look at it is that Severian, as an author, is deliberately using \nthis literary device to attempt to keep us from asking him to justify his \nactions (presumably because he can't). Nobody seems to really want to treat \nthe book and the character as if this is all there is to it, though. So \nwhat is *Wolfe* trying to do? It would seem uncharacteristic of him to be \nmaking a veiled attack on the notion of free will. At least not as it \napplies to humans. Is the answer just that we intuitively accept that \nSeverian, as the Conciliator, *isn't* human? To a certain extent it is easy \nfor us to see him as a sort of cog in the celestial machine, a sort of \nangel (like Tzadkiel) with his own destined role to play, and this is \nprepared for us quite early on, in the passages about Talos's play. But it \nseems to me that this can't be all there is to it, because in every other \nway we *do* accept Severian as human. This paints a very strange picture. \nAre we to think of Severian as a man or not? And if we do think of him as a \nman, what sort of strange view of free will are we embracing in doing so?\n\nApologies for the long-windedness, but to make up for it I will try to sit \ndown and be quiet now.\n-- Civet\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T06:39:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "<423D22D9.6090502@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You wish an objective goal? Very well, I can supply one.\n\nConsider that happiness has a very strong correlation to\nthe concentrations of certain chemicals in the human species\nbrain, which is objectively measurable; consider further that\nthere are brain wave patterns which have a very strong correlation\nwith happiness, and are equally objectively measurable. These two\ntests can be concatenated for a measurement of high confidence.\n\nFind out of the set of all physical behaivours\nwhich are selectable by a particular human, the action which results in a \nglobal maxima\nof a scalar quantity of happiness, measured dimensionlessly, with every \nhomo sapien\nweighted equally. This would be the ideal well-adjusted, but undoubtedly\nis computationally intractable to find, so practically it can be reduced to\noptimum behaivour findable in a certain finite time.\nThis pseudo-definition give you a decent start for what 'well-adjusted' is?\nIt isn't that it can't be well-defined, its that no one bothers since we \nall know it intuitively." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "*Puts on G. E. Moore mask*\n\n'And why is maximising that in the majority of the population good?'\n\nIorwerth\n\n(who really should be getting some work done instead of discussing ethics)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004101c52e3a$7a720200$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-21T09:21:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<20050321104034.72813.qmail@web54205.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "1. He may be a psycho but he done what had to be done.\n2. He took a liberty, but the end justifies the means.\n3. He is evil and billions died cause of what he did.\n\nThere's another way of looking at it. Severian didn't TAKE the power of the\nNew Sun. He was GIVEN that power. Furthermore he was given that power by\nsomeone with rightful authority over it (one could argue). And with the\ngranting of that power (authority), was the responsibility of deciding how\nto use it. He could have chosen not to bring the New Sun and then been\nresponsible for the rubbing out of humanity on Earth and the humanity unborn\n(the Green Man and his civilization) and the hierodules uncreated (but would\nhe then be made a neutered autarch and the responsibility would have been\ngiven to someone else?). Or he could have chosen to use the authority for\nthe reason it was given. In this sense is as senseless to accuse Severian of\nmurder as it is to accuse God of murder (speaking in a Judeo-Christian\nsense). God gives life, he sustains life, so he cannot \"rob\" anyone of life;\nhe merely reclaims what is His own. The world of Severian only existed\nbecause of the H intercession. If the world were to be eternally\ndominated by Erebus and the Acians, would we be as concerned that Sev had\nput an end to it?\n\nSo rather than Sev being an unthinking tool, he could be thoughtfully\nyielding to what he sees as a rightful authority and using the authority \nthey\nhave given him dutifully (\"duty\" implies that it is justly deserved) on\ntheir behalf. Hmmmm....Perhaps there is more overlap between tBotNS and tWK\nthan I realized.\n\nIt seemed to me that we were on the verge of comparing Severian to\nOzymandias in \"The Watchman\" graphic novel (a profoundly fascist work). I\ndon't think they are at all similar.\n\n~ Crush\n\nRevelations 6:4-8\nAnd there went out another horse that was red: and authority was given to\nhim that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill\none another: and there was given to him a great sword....And I looked, and\nbehold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell\nfollowed with him. And authority was given unto them (Death and Hell) over\nthe fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with\ndeath, and with the beasts of the earth.\n\nRev 11:3-6 And I will give authority to my two witnesses...These have power\nto shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have\npower over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all\nplagues, as often as they will." } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c52e53$ac2de7a0$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T12:22:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004101c52e3a$7a720200$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush wrote:\nIt seemed to me that we were on the verge of comparing Severian to\nOzymandias in \"The Watchman\" graphic novel (a profoundly fascist work)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "don't think they are at all similar." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True. Ozymandias chose to sacrifice the few to save the many. Severian\ndoes it the other way around. :-)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T12:52:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004101c52e3a$7a720200$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, briefly, Iorwerth was astute in bringing up Kierkegaard, and there's \nanother aspect of the case that should be kept in mind for the kind of \ndefenses we are likely to make for Severian.\n\nK. commented that one of the most common excuses that the religious would \nmake for Abraham is that, after all, everything *did* work out in the end, \nand God *did* ask him to do what he did, etc. This excuse is made from a \npoint of view that's sort of \"above the action\", and with the benefit of \nhindsight. But if you put yourself in Abraham's position the situation is \nmuch worse than all that, in that:\n(a) Are you *sure* that that's God's voice you just heard? Couldn't you be \nmistaken?\n(b) Is what the voice asked you to do consistent with the God you believe \nin?\n(c) If God actually takes away Isaac then, in context, he is a \npromise-breaker and deceiver. If you are really in the hands of an \nomnipotent deceiver then (a la Descartes's evil demon) you can't ever know \nanything, or trust your own rational decisions. But if God doesn't take \nIsaac away then why would he ask for the sacrifice, and isn't that \nneedlessly cruel?\n\nIn that situation most of us would have a real problem carrying through with \nwhat Abraham did. And we could supply no real *rational* justification for \nour actions. As far as we are capable of judging, morally, his actions have \nto be condemned because there's simply no ground for approving them.\n\nNow, Severian's case. He suspects that he may be mad. He also accepts that a \nlarge number of apparently reasonable, sane people do not agree with the \ndecision he is making and will try to stop him given a chance. In his \nposition, is this not a strong indication that you may be mistaken? Further: \none thing that Severian does *not* do is engage in rational/moral debate \nover the issue. He may fight to the death, but does not seem interested in \ntrying to convince people not to oppose him. The implication (to me) seems \nto be that he knows that he can supply no rational reason that will \nsatisfactorily justify his decision.\n\nThere are also many ways in which Sev's position does not parallel \nAbraham's, and for that reason I don't want to make a discussion of Abraham \ncentral to understanding Severian. But what I am getting at is that if we \nreally attempt to judge Severian the way we would judge a real person, then \nwe can't accept \"happily every after\" endings or appeals to divine guidance \nas adequate justifications.\n\nBut we do, pretty much unanimously, think of Severian's actions as \njustified. While I am sort of playing the role of the Accuser here, my \ninterest isn't really in convincing people to condemn Sev, what I would like \nto get at is a deeper understanding of how and why we do accept him as \njustified in his actions.\n\nSort of half-related, someone also raised a good point to me about how in a \nsense our judgments of Severian, or Urth in general, seem only semi-real in \nthe first place (even for a work of fiction) because Severian has a way of \ntalking as if he were half-dreaming. This strikes a chord with me; Urth \nnever seemed real as a \"place\" to me but had the sort of geography of a \ndream, or subconscious realm. In this respect I do think that perhaps a \ncomparison with WK might be in order as you say.\n\nCivet\n\nPS - I'm not sure what you mean by \"The Watchmen\" being a \"fascist work\", \nany more than \"1984\" is a \"totalitarian work\" or \"Animal Farm\" is a \n\"communist work\". \"V for Vendetta\" has a stronger connection with fascism \nbut it is fairly clearly anti-fascist in viewpoint." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "1. He may be a psycho but he done what had to be done.\n2. He took a liberty, but the end justifies the means.\n3. He is evil and billions died cause of what he did.\n\nThere's another way of looking at it. Severian didn't TAKE the power of the\nNew Sun. He was GIVEN that power. Furthermore he was given that power by\nsomeone with rightful authority over it (one could argue). And with the\ngranting of that power (authority), was the responsibility of deciding how\nto use it. He could have chosen not to bring the New Sun and then been\nresponsible for the rubbing out of humanity on Earth and the humanity \nunborn\n(the Green Man and his civilization) and the hierodules uncreated (but \nwould\nhe then be made a neutered autarch and the responsibility would have been\ngiven to someone else?). Or he could have chosen to use the authority for\nthe reason it was given. In this sense is as senseless to accuse Severian \nof\nmurder as it is to accuse God of murder (speaking in a Judeo-Christian\nsense). God gives life, he sustains life, so he cannot \"rob\" anyone of \nlife;\nhe merely reclaims what is His own. The world of Severian only existed\nbecause of the H intercession. If the world were to be eternally\ndominated by Erebus and the Acians, would we be as concerned that Sev had\nput an end to it?\n\nSo rather than Sev being an unthinking tool, he could be thoughtfully\nyielding to what he sees as a rightful authority and using the authority \nthey\nhave given him dutifully (\"duty\" implies that it is justly deserved) on\ntheir behalf. Hmmmm....Perhaps there is more overlap between tBotNS and tWK\nthan I realized.\n\nIt seemed to me that we were on the verge of comparing Severian to\nOzymandias in \"The Watchman\" graphic novel (a profoundly fascist work). I\ndon't think they are at all similar.\n\n~ Crush\n\nRevelations 6:4-8\nAnd there went out another horse that was red: and authority was given to\nhim that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should \nkill\none another: and there was given to him a great sword....And I looked, and\nbehold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell\nfollowed with him. And authority was given unto them (Death and Hell) over\nthe fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with\ndeath, and with the beasts of the earth.\n\nRev 11:3-6 And I will give authority to my two witnesses...These have power\nto shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have\npower over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all\nplagues, as often as they will.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705032113121258381f@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T13:12:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004101c52e3a$7a720200$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:21:49 -0600, James Wynn wrote:\nIt seemed to me that we were on the verge of comparing Severian to\nOzymandias in \"The Watchman\" graphic novel (a profoundly fascist work). I\ndon't think they are at all similar." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Uhnnnh?\n\nNo. This is not a \"profoundly facist\" work. It is a profound work _about_\nfacism. \n\nGaaaaah.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<003601c52e70$add1cd70$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-21T15:49:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705032113121258381f@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Blattid said\nNo. [The Watchmen is] not a \"profoundly fascist\" work. It is a profound\nwork_about_fascism. Gaaaaah." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was \"about\" fascism rather\nthan founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not \n**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre in \n\"The Watchmen\". Are you suggesting Ozy is presented as anything but a hero?\n\nI'd say it is perfectly fair to view Alan Moore's \"The Watchmen\" as a suite \nwith Frank Miller's \"The\nDark Knight Returns\" (also knee deep in the most sinister regions of \nNietzsche).\n\nIn TDKR, Commissioner Gordon defends Batman by comparing him to the myth \nthat\nFDR knew the Japanese were invading Pearl Harbor and chose to do nothing in\norder to get the US into WWII. His argument is that Batman is somehow \"too\nbig\" to be assigned normal human morality (just like FDR in his\nresponsibilities as the fuehrer -oops! I mean \"leader\" - of the US).\nFurthermore, Frank Miller makes a rather obvious play off of term \"Superman\" \nas in Ubermensche (which unrelatedly is the meaning of Overcyn). Batman says \nto Superman \"We must not let [ordinary people] know there are giants among \nthem\".\n\nIn a shameless rip-off of this theme, Moore has Mr. Manhattan justify \nOzymandias' actions for exactly the same reasons that Com. Gordon justified \nBatman's (\"it's too big\"). Then M.M. turns the only true common-man hero in \nthe story (Rorschach) to a pile of dust to stop him from undermining O's \nscheme." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tony Ellis says:\nTrue. Ozymandias chose to sacrifice the few to save the many. Severian\ndoes it the other way around. :-)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "When one considers the generations unborn on Urth if the New Sun does not \ncome, then the opposite is true. (I was also unconvinced that Ozy's act \nsaved anything...but then I did not live in fear of nuclear obliteration \nduring the 80s and found it difficult to take seriously that fear in other \npeople during that time.)\n\n~ Crush\n\nP.S. I own all 12 comic books from \"The Watchmen\" series. I appreciate the \nlandmarks that that series and TDKR represents in graphic arts fiction. But \nI could say the same for \"The Birth of a Nation\" for cinema arts." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370503211655626b349@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T16:55:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<003601c52e70$add1cd70$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:48:50 -0600, James Wynn wrote:\nBlattid said\nNo. [The Watchmen is] not a \"profoundly fascist\" work. It is a profound\nwork_about_fascism. Gaaaaah." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was \"about\" fascism rather\nthan founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not\n**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre \nin \"The Watchmen\". Are you suggesting Ozy is presented as anything but\na hero?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absolutely, yes. I almost have the feeling that you've read _Watchmen_\nwith far too much attention to the \"superhero\" aspect of the story and not\nenough to what's going on with the other characters.\n\nThe only people in _Watchmen_ who are actually portrayed as in any \nway heroic are some of the people who die on the streetcorner when \nVeidt's monster materializes - the ones who, in the shadow of Armageddon \n(though not the Armageddon they are expecting), show compassion and \ncaring. The shrink who _has_ to help the fighting couple (Joey and her \ngirlfriend), the newsbutcher who shares his coat with the kid, etc.\n\nOzymandias and his actions are portrayed as morally ambiguous - _he_\nthinks he's a hero because, inna final analysis, he believes that his plan\nhas worked.\n\nBut is he? He kills the Comedian (the _apparent_ facist - who cries his\neyes out when he realizes what Veidt is doing) to protect his secrets." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd say it is perfectly fair to view Alan Moore's \"The Watchmen\" as a \nsuite with Frank Miller's \"The Dark Knight Returns\" (also knee deep \nin the most sinister regions of Nietzsche)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder if you understand Nietzsche half so well as you think you do.\n\"Beware when you wrestle with monsters...\" might stand as the motto\nto TDKR." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In a shameless rip-off of this theme, " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is simply insulting. Moore had plotted _Watchmen_ LONG before\nTDKR was published." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Moore has Mr. Manhattan justify\nOzymandias' actions for exactly the same reasons that Com. Gordon justified\nBatman's (\"it's too big\"). Then M.M. turns the only true common-man hero in\nthe story (Rorschach) to a pile of dust to stop him from undermining O's\nscheme." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, Osterman - another character of high moral ambiguity - kills \nRorschach, because if Rorschach spills the beans about Veidt, then \nthe people who have already died will have died for nothing. If \nnot, then the cold war ends without turning into the all-out nuclear \nheck that has seemed inevitable since Tricky and Gerry went down\ninto their bunker. \n\nThis isn't to say (on my part or Moore's) that Manhattan is _right_ to \ndo so: rather, he is, is inhumanly, making a nigh-mathematical \ncalculation about the hedonic/utilitarian value of keeping Veidt's \nsecret as over against revealing it. The Comedian, who is a bit of\na prophet in the scheme of _Watchmen_, says it clearly: he tells\nOsterman \"you're losing it,\" years earlier, in Vietnam." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "P.S. I own all 12 comic books from \"The Watchmen\" series. I appreciate the\nlandmarks that that series and TDKR represents in graphic arts fiction. But\nI could say the same for \"The Birth of a Nation\" for cinema arts." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\n\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T17:15:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503211655626b349@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:55:05 -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI wonder if you understand Nietzsche half so well as you think you do.\n\"Beware when you wrestle with monsters...\" might stand as the motto\nto TDKR." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Monsters wrestle with you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\n\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alright, I find that not a little insulting and downright wrong.\nFirst off, what the hell do you expect? The whole power system in the Duniverse\nis feudal, practically fascistic by definition. I mean, I've never\nseen a fictional work which had a feudal power structure and wasn't\nfascistic.\nSecondly, while (I'm not saying that is true, but for the sake of\nargument I'll let it pass) that may be true of \"Dune\" proper, that is\nradically not true of the series as a whole- I honestly know of no\nother way to characterize the Scattering as anything but\nanti-authoritarian and rather democratic.\nAnd thirdly, Herbert specifically claimed that much of the work was a\nwarning; a warning of the bloodbaths, the tragedies, (this is actually\nrelevant to the other discussion about judging Severian; we can\nsimilarly judge Paul, but his crimes are far worse, not gigadeaths,\nbut more like tera-deaths. I think the specific quote is in DM; but a\ncommonality is that both are forced into it. Or did you miss all the\nparts where Paul presciently sought a way out and tried to end the\nJihad?) of what happens when blind faith is put in a messianic leader\nand conquests (hmm, sounds like a decent description of a fascist\nleader.). Notice also that the \"master race\" (you mean the Atreides\nno doubt) dwindle in importance, from a Great House which threaten the\nemperor, to regular people who flee in the scattering. And also as\nbreeding stock whose jewel (Siona) is scattered to the masses, hardly\nwhat one would expect of a neo-fascist ruling race.\nThat said, Watchmen sounds interesting. Think I'll pester my library\nto acquire it.\n\n~Maru\n\"In Soviet Russia, monsters wrestle with you!\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2005-03-21T17:58:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Watchmen, fascism, feudalism and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:\nOn Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:55:05 -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\n\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Alright, I find that not a little insulting and downright wrong.\nFirst off, what the hell do you expect? The whole power system in the Duniverse\nis feudal, practically fascistic by definition. I mean, I've never\nseen a fictional work which had a feudal power structure and wasn't\nfascistic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which can come back around to Wolfe, the Divine Right of rulers, and the\nnatural hierarchy of authority, and the lawfulness of revolution. The\nAutarch is exactly in the mould of Herbert's ruling family.\n\nWith a few exceptions, Wolfe's worlds are feudal or authoritarian in\nnature, and full of warfare. On Urth, the rebels are in the wrong, as\nthey are against the anointed ruler. in Long Sun series, the\nrevolutionaries are \"in the right\" in overturning the usurpers. However,\nthey merely want to return to the rulership of a King, the Calde, as set\ndown by the demiurge Pas. In the sublunary world, that is as good as you\ncan get. In the medieval Christian viewpoint, this too is as good as you\ncan get.\n\nWRT Severian's guilt or otherwise, I think his viewpoint is that of a\nsoldier doing his duty -- which inevitably involves harm to others.\nSimilarly, in the world of the (virtuous) Knight, and of the Soldier (of\narete). Their duty is something all Wolfe's characters have to work out\nfor themselves, but then have to act on regardless of consequences to\nthemselves or others." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T18:27:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Watchmen, fascism, feudalism and Wolfe", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well this is another piece that plays into the scheme. Severian was raised \nwith a duty/job, like that of a soldier, which did involve harming people. \nAnd this background is an important factor in why *he* in particular gets \nthe job of being the Conciliator.\n\nBut let's not allow the Torturers to go unexamined here, especially since \nthis job would be morally repugnant to most of us. What makes it OK? Well, \nthe Guild has a sort of credo, a way of banishing personal doubts, and this \nis revealed to Severian when he joins: Torturers obey.\n\nAnd here again we return to this apparent lack of free will. Torturers are \nnot to be judged (or are not to be judged themselves), because in their \nofficial capacity they are just *instruments* of the Autarch. They make no \ndecisions, it is not for them to question the rightness or wrongness of \ntheir actions, they just fulfill their duty. Is this a correct explanation, \ndoes this justify Severian and the Torturers? It's an awfully tempting \nargument from a certain perspective, especially if you were raised with such \nideals. But I think we are meant to ultimately consider and *reject* any \nsuch argument. Wolfe writes from a context where \"we were just following \norders\" is a tragically misguided excuse.\n\nGiven that Severian tries to get rid of the guild altogether when he gets \nthe chance, I would expect him to reject such a notion as well." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "WRT Severian's guilt or otherwise, I think his viewpoint is that of a\nsoldier doing his duty -- which inevitably involves harm to others.\nSimilarly, in the world of the (virtuous) Knight, and of the Soldier (of\narete). Their duty is something all Wolfe's characters have to work out\nfor themselves, but then have to act on regardless of consequences to\nthemselves or others." } ] }, { "message_id": "<423F89DE.4070708@bitterman.net>", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2005-03-21T18:58:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nThis has been done to death from certain perspectives, but I am \ninterested in the reasons *why* we let Severian off as lightly as we \ngenerally do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because we've all heard the story before. All 3 major Western religions \nare built on events in\nwhich either God Himself, or members of the religion with God's approval \nand help, kill bunches\nof other people. The holy books which are taught to us since childhood \nand inform our culture\napprove of the killing. So of course when somebody else comes along and \nsays he had to kill a\nbunch of people for a supreme being we find nothing unusual.\n\nWas Wolfe thinking of this? It makes some sense if we view Urth as \nstuck in a sort of pre-Old\nTestament mode, when things were done that way.\n\nEnamel" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T19:24:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<423F89DE.4070708@bitterman.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:58:38 -0500, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nBecause we've all heard the story before. All 3 major Western religions\nare built on events in\nwhich either God Himself, or members of the religion with God's approval\nand help, kill bunches\nof other people. The holy books which are taught to us since childhood\nand inform our culture\napprove of the killing. So of course when somebody else comes along and\nsays he had to kill a\nbunch of people for a supreme being we find nothing unusual.\n\nWas Wolfe thinking of this? It makes some sense if we view Urth as\nstuck in a sort of pre-Old\nTestament mode, when things were done that way." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or a pagan mode. I cannot help but be reminded everytime I hear 'New\nSun' that that is a title that could very well have been used by the\nRoman soldiers in their solar cults, or possible Zoroastrianism, or\nreally, any of a grab bag (Egyptian too probably) of religions and\ncults that had the basic myth/archetype of resurrection and rebirth,\nand also liked the sun.\n\nAnd let us not forget the play in TBotNS; I once was told that the\nplay was like a skeleton key to the whole cycle. It makes a certain\nsense that there would be a parallel between the old people in the\nplay being hunted and killed (I'm not sure about the killing bit- its\nbeen a while since I read the play) and actual 'Old Sun'ers being\nkilled. The whole eschatological cleansing of the world, Apocalypse\nnow, Jerusalem being made anew, and a third of the population shall be\nstruck down etc. etc.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<423F92EB.2060607@bitterman.net>", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2005-03-21T19:37:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed..." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Maru Dubshinki", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-21T20:02:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<423F92EB.2060607@bitterman.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:37:15 -0500, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\n Maru Dubshinki wrote:\n \n On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:55:05 -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Hierarchy, loyalty, military service, land/economic concessions under it\nall. Fascist - not so much.\n No deification of nation, no identification of national and corporate\ninterests. The Fremen, on the other\n hand - fascist as all get out." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Meh- I am not certain how much of that is fascist and how much simply\nxenophobic paranoid superstitious tribal characteristics, nor do I\nreally see any identification of 'national and corporate interests' :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Secondly, while (I'm not saying that is true, but for the sake of argument\nI'll let it pass) that may be true of \"Dune\" proper, that is radically not\ntrue of the series as a whole- I honestly know of no other way to\ncharacterize the Scattering as anything but anti-authoritarian and rather\ndemocratic. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As a last gasp of a dying society? The Worm had to drag\nhumanity kicking and screaming\n to it.\nThe desert Fremen certainly think of\nthemselves as a \"master race\", and the book encourages\n that view." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wait, pause, which Fremen was that? The Fremen who: A) got raped up da\nbutt by the Old Empire in countless ways, B) Had their culture and way\nof life not just destroyed by the Worm, but reduced to an utter\nmockery, C) Had their religion perverted by master maniuplators, and\nwere themselves manipulated by Muad'Dib and the BG and others, who\nessentially used'em as cannonfodder D) Had their planet reduced to\nworse than burnt ash by the HMs, or E) None of the Above?\nYes, I was certainly encouraged to view the superstitious, gullible,\ncorruptible Fremen as a master race. Heil Stilgar!\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-22T00:34:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<423F89DE.4070708@bitterman.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thomas Bitterman writes: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All 3 major Western religions are built on events in\nwhich either God Himself, or members of the religion with God's approval \nand help, kill bunches of other people. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThe physical and (especially) the biological Universe is also built on this, \nirrespective of any hypotheses about the divine " } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050322120059.A024033C7F@mailserver5.hushmail.com>", "from": { "name": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com", "address": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T04:01:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush wrote:\n\"Superman\"\nas in Ubermensche (which unrelatedly is the meaning of Overcyn)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is that really the best readng of \"Overcyn\"? AFK, \"cyn\" = \"kin\",\nand you could just read it as \"the folks who live up there\". Or\nmaybe even, \"our kin up above\". (I get the sense that the Overcyns\nare somehow \"kin\" to humans - Art seems to make a point of it from\ntime to time - though I don't know how that fits with humans having\nbeen raised from animals.)\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nNote: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify\nVersion: Hush 2.4\n\nwkYEARECAAYFAkJACPcACgkQBctFqdKBBTtKjACeKyIyIk4a0PtacDbPoAduEXSBGgUA\nnin3qYSi+qaioTquie4CQy5JzPS4\n=TM/N\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" } ] }, { "message_id": "<008b01c52ee9$69e91db0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T06:14:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Overcyn", "in_reply_to": "<20050322120059.A024033C7F@mailserver5.hushmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"Superman\"\nas in Ubermensche (which unrelatedly is the meaning of Overcyn)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is that really the best readng of \"Overcyn\"? AFK, \"cyn\" = \"kin\",\nand you could just read it as \"the folks who live up there\". Or\nmaybe even, \"our kin up above\". (I get the sense that the Overcyns\nare somehow \"kin\" to humans - Art seems to make a point of it from\ntime to time - though I don't know how that fits with humans having\nbeen raised from animals.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"cyn\" is Icelandic for people, race, and yes \"kin\" as in people related to \neach other and by extrapolation \"my kin\" or relatives.\n\nOver is from Indoeuropean, so AFAIK there is no old word \"overcyn\". Wolfe \nmade it up. One could translate it merely as \"the people above us\" as well I \nsuppose but I think the connection to \"Uber=over or super (as in ubermensch) \nas opposed to Under = inferior, sub, below (as in undermensch) is also \nreasonable and likely intended.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<000f01c52ef1$ec595280$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T07:15:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503211655626b349@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:48:50 -0600, James Wynn \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Blattid said\nNo. [The Watchmen is] not a \"profoundly fascist\" work. It is a profound\nwork_about_fascism. Gaaaaah." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was \"about\" fascism rather\nthan founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not\n**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre\nin \"The Watchmen\". Are you suggesting Ozy is presented as anything but\na hero?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And then Blattid posted a spirited and thoughtful defense of \"The Watchmen\" \ngraphic novel although I must say I'm far from convinced." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only people in _Watchmen_ who are actually portrayed as in any\nway heroic are some of the people who die on the streetcorner when\nVeidt's monster materializes...Ozymandias and his actions are\nportrayed as morally ambiguous - _he_\nthinks he's a hero because, inna final analysis, he believes that his\nplan has worked. But is he? He kills the Comedian (the _apparent\n_ facist - who cries his eyes out when he realizes what Veidt is\ndoing) to protect his secrets...Yes, Osterman - another character\nof high moral ambiguity" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Comedian is not a fascist. He's a misandrist nihlist. He's painted as \nnothing less than a villian. Ozy is an anti-hero, but a hero nonetheless. \nHis manner in killing the Comedian (in much the way Severian kills Typhon) \nis an architypical heroic act. Mr. Manhattan is a melancholy character who \nis somewhat deterministic (to an extent that is difficult to separate from \nfatalistic). But he is painted as nothing if not enlightened. His bestowal \nof his blessing on Ozy's plan cannot be labeled merely ambiguous." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wonder if you understand Nietzsche half so well as you think you do.\n\"Beware when you wrestle with monsters...\" might stand as the motto\nto TDKR." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I probably do not, however, I recommend to you \"The Closing of the American \nMind\" by Nietzsche scholar Allan Bloom in the 80s. He devotes a significant \nportion of the book to Nietzsche's philosophy and an entire chapter to the \npolitical Left's reconstruction and embracing of that philosopher. I found \nthat book illuminating as to how leftist writers like Miller and Moore could \nadopt the stances they take in TDKR and TW." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In a shameless rip-off of this theme," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is simply insulting. Moore had plotted _Watchmen_ LONG before\nTDKR was published." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Plotted is not written, and Manhattan's justification of Ozy's plan almost \nword-for-word mirroring Com. Gordon's justification of Batman simply cannot \nbe ignored." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll check that out next time I read it. I don't recall any mention of a \n\"master race\". But the connections some are making between feudalism and \nWolfe's governments and fascism I do not believe are warranted. The view of \nthe King in Christendom cannot be separated from the view of God having a \ntheologically rightful place of authority in Heaven. The King is not a \n\"leader\", he is God's executive. The Roman Empire could be seen possibly as \nproto-fascistic but Egypt and most of Asia (with their god-kings) could not \nIMO. It is hard for me to imagine true fascism (except by analogy) being at \nall related to a religion in which the Leader acts as a **servant** of God.\n\nSo the Autarch IMO is not a fascist ruler and neither was King Arthur or \nSilk or Fidel Casto or any other \"liberator\" or defender of his people \nagainst powerful aggressors.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<002301c52ef9$a7e982c0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T08:10:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And (ideally) the Overcyns follow the pattern of the beings of Kleos." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But, this isn't even beng mentioned in the context of this discussion. Why \nhasn't it come up? I am an Odinist - It's my religion. I have some \nproblems with the pictures of the Overcyns in WTK, and I think I can now \ndefine the reason.\nOdinism is not actually a supernaturalist religion: it conceives of the \ngods as human archetypes, or at least that's what we say nowadays.\nI don't know if the original gothis saw Thor as genuinely creating the \nthunder by throwing his hammer, but in one very real sense they believed \nthe same as us modern Odinists. They **didn't** believe in Kleos or \nElysium. They didn't think that standards for right and virtue came down \nfrom on high. That belief came later (with the development of \nmonotheism)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think TWK is centrally about Nordic mythology. It is about \nknighthood: a concept that developed under Christianity. I don't think \n\"knighthood\" can be dealt with separate from a Medieval Western European \nChristian worldview. Wolfe has pulled a slight of hand. He has borrowed \nliberally from Nordic mythology and terminology but is actually writing a \nChristian story -- in the vein of \"The Chronicles of Narnia\". When Allfather \nkneels before St. Michael the Archangel (who is *directly* associated with \nJesus in the Icelandic \"Njal's Saga\") that becomes obvious.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T08:56:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000f01c52ef1$ec595280$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"James Wynn\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Plotted is not written, and Manhattan's justification of Ozy's plan almost \nword-for-word mirroring Com. Gordon's justification of Batman simply cannot \nbe ignored." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Regarding TDK, I think the British sf magazine SFX had a feature on it in \nwhich Miller was of the opinion that most of Gotham's villans were as they \nwere due to the presence of Batman; the theory put forwards by the tv \npsychologist that Batman is the locus of the chaos (since criminals define \nthemselves against him) is in fact what is going on. This suggests a \nreading in which the events of the graphic novel are nothing but a psychotic \nwish fulfillment fantasy for Bruce Wayne; a nice comment on some \nundercurrents of the superhero genre. On that reading, it's no more facist \nthan Spinrad's 'The Iron Dream'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't find these as obvious in Dune [1] as I do in, say, Robert Jordan's \n'Wheel of Time' (content digested via the RPG rulebook; Jordan's prose gives \nme indigestion) - where a couple of obvious borrowings from Dune (fearsome \ntribesmen who'd be Fremen if not for the lack of sandworms, a manipulative \norder of women who're the Bene Gesserit in all but name) meet with some \ndubious subtexts - purity of 'old blood', anyone? - in fashion I find \nslightly disturbing. Thing is, I'm not sure this is deliberate on Jordan's \npart, as a lot of these subtexts have always lurked around fantasy (which \ndoesn't make their inclusion a good thing); probably as a holdover from the \npulps.\n\n[1] I suspect, if they're there, Herbet either is commenting on them in a \nnegative way, or they're space opera tropes that have snuck in without \nanyone noticing, which can happen if no one's careful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll check that out next time I read it. I don't recall any mention of a \n\"master race\". But the connections some are making between feudalism and \nWolfe's governments and fascism I do not believe are warranted. The view of \nthe King in Christendom cannot be separated from the view of God having a \ntheologically rightful place of authority in Heaven. The King is not a \n\"leader\", he is God's executive." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This seems right. In British history, the Divine Right of Kings (as per \nmost peoples conceptions of a monarchy) seems to be a fairly late invention \ndue to James I (who may have needed it as a coping device following many \nassasination attempts). It did not go down well, as his son discovered." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Roman Empire could be seen possibly as proto-fascistic but Egypt and \nmost of Asia (with their god-kings) could not IMO. It is hard for me to \nimagine true fascism (except by analogy) being at all related to a religion \nin which the Leader acts as a **servant** of God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quite. It's when they delude themselves into thinking they speak for God or \nare God that I imagine problems arise. Though I don't think a monarchy \nwould be the ideal system I'd choose if I were God. :)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So the Autarch IMO is not a fascist ruler and neither was King Arthur or \nSilk or Fidel Casto or any other \"liberator\" or defender of his people \nagainst powerful aggressors." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree, but I think quick definitions of what is meant by 'fascism' now, \nrather than later, may also save everyone a lot of hassle and strained \ntyping fingers. It's one of those words that everyone is sure they know \nwhat it means, but...\n\nWe might also have to draw a distiction between the political structure in \nthe various novels and what moral point is being conveyed through the \nstructures. The tendency towards monarchy may be a convenient metaphor; it \nsubstitutes most easily for 'rightful authority' in the fantasy genre simply \nbecause most readers view fantasy worlds that way (this is lazy on their \npart, but a clever authour can easily exploit it to profitable end). I \ndoubt Wolfe is seriously suggesting that he'd like to live in the Autarchy.\n\nIorwerth" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T11:14:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000f01c52ef1$ec595280$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The defenses other people here have made as far as the theme of the Watchmen \ngo are, I think, adequate; but I think that part of the difficulty here is \nthat you take a very different view of the characters, and some of the \nscenes they appear in have radically different overtones.\n\nOzy's killing of the Comedian is not in any way a heroic act, it's something \nout a spy drama or murder thriller. It occurs in the dark, in terror, and \nit's not a matter of stopping the Comedian for being such a bad man (which \nhe was, as you say), it's a matter of keeping him silent because, \nironically, he does have just a bit more conscience left than Ozymandias \ndoes. It's a crime, a murder, and is treated as such from the beginning and \non through the rest of the story.\n\nManhattan certainly did not seem to be enlightened, unless you equate \nenlightenment with the loss of his humanity. Judging him as a human (which \nhe eventually comes to accept, he is not) there's no way to look at him but \nas a sad, screwed up creature. This is highlighted by his interactions with \nSilk Spectre.\n\nSpeaking of which, it always seemed to me that she, and the arguable \nprotagonist (which nobody mentions because of his utter normality - part of \nwhat makes him the protagonist) the Night Owl, have the only \"happy ending\" \nthere is in this story. A fairly obvious rejection of the ubermensch ideal, \nsince both turn their backs on the superhero world.\n\nRe: Severian it is hard to place the Autarchy amongst other, real forms of \ngovernment. From where does the power of the Autarchy derive? Most don't \neven know who the Autarch is or what he looks like, how power is passed \ndown, etc. The Autarch is almost a *fact* more than he is a particular \nperson." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Comedian is not a fascist. He's a misandrist nihlist. He's painted as \nnothing less than a villian. Ozy is an anti-hero, but a hero nonetheless. \nHis manner in killing the Comedian (in much the way Severian kills Typhon) \nis an architypical heroic act. Mr. Manhattan is a melancholy character who \nis somewhat deterministic (to an extent that is difficult to separate from \nfatalistic). But he is painted as nothing if not enlightened. His bestowal \nof his blessing on Ozy's plan cannot be labeled merely ambiguous." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I wonder if you understand Nietzsche half so well as you think you do.\n\"Beware when you wrestle with monsters...\" might stand as the motto\nto TDKR." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I probably do not, however, I recommend to you \"The Closing of the American \nMind\" by Nietzsche scholar Allan Bloom in the 80s. He devotes a significant \nportion of the book to Nietzsche's philosophy and an entire chapter to the \npolitical Left's reconstruction and embracing of that philosopher. I found \nthat book illuminating as to how leftist writers like Miller and Moore \ncould adopt the stances they take in TDKR and TW." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In a shameless rip-off of this theme," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is simply insulting. Moore had plotted _Watchmen_ LONG before\nTDKR was published." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Plotted is not written, and Manhattan's justification of Ozy's plan almost \nword-for-word mirroring Com. Gordon's justification of Batman simply cannot \nbe ignored." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You want to know a classic that's facistic as all hell?\nRead _Dune_ and pay attention to what's actually going on.\nMaster race, fuhrerprinzip, the whole works." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'll check that out next time I read it. I don't recall any mention of a \n\"master race\". But the connections some are making between feudalism and \nWolfe's governments and fascism I do not believe are warranted. The view of \nthe King in Christendom cannot be separated from the view of God having a \ntheologically rightful place of authority in Heaven. The King is not a \n\"leader\", he is God's executive. The Roman Empire could be seen possibly as \nproto-fascistic but Egypt and most of Asia (with their god-kings) could not \nIMO. It is hard for me to imagine true fascism (except by analogy) being at \nall related to a religion in which the Leader acts as a **servant** of God.\n\nSo the Autarch IMO is not a fascist ruler and neither was King Arthur or \nSilk or Fidel Casto or any other \"liberator\" or defender of his people \nagainst powerful aggressors.\n\n~ Crush\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370503221238b51cc5@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T12:38:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ozy's killing of the Comedian is not in any way a heroic act, it's something\nout a spy drama or murder thriller. It occurs in the dark, in terror, and\nit's not a matter of stopping the Comedian for being such a bad man (which\nhe was, as you say), it's a matter of keeping him silent because,\nironically, he does have just a bit more conscience left than Ozymandias\ndoes. It's a crime, a murder, and is treated as such from the beginning and\non through the rest of the story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Furthermore, that isn't even why he does it. Oh, yeah, it's \"necessary,\"\nbut reading the book closely, you realize that it's basically a petty act\nof revenge. I believe it's only in the \"text features\" that we learn that\nOzymandias and the Comedian met in a dark warehouse once and, \nin the classic superhero comic mistaken identity riff, fought.\n\nThe Comedian beat the pulp out of Ozymandias. \n\n(The seeds may have been planted, though, when the Comedian\nburned Ozzy's map at the one meeting of the pseudo-Justice League\nin the '60s.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Speaking of which, it always seemed to me that [Silk Spectre], and \nthe arguable protagonist (which nobody mentions because of his\nutter normality - part of what makes him the protagonist) the Night\nOwl, have the only \"happy ending\" there is in this story. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ummm ... utter normality? Have you forgotten that he can't get\nit up except in superhero costume?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A fairly obvious rejection of the ubermensch ideal,\nsince both turn their backs on the superhero world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not at all clear. We know that they've taken new civilian identities,\nbut we don't know that they aren't fighting crime under new names.\n(I'd have to reread the last issue to be sure but I have the vague\nimpression that they hint to Laurie's mom - Silk Spectre 1 - that\nthey _are_.)\n\n--Dan'l\nwho has spent waaay too much time thinking about funnybooks" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<000201c52f24$89ba1910$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T13:17:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: OT - Watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503221238b51cc5@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Crush wrote:\nTony Ellis says:\nTrue. Ozymandias chose to sacrifice the few to save the many. Severian" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "does it the other way around. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "When one considers the generations unborn on Urth if the New Sun does \nnot come, then the opposite is true." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If what counts is the number of descendants the survivors of a mass\nslaughter might one day have, then mass slaughter on any scale, no\nmatter how horrifically vast, can always be justified as the killing of\nthe few. We tend to measure these things in terms of actual people\nkilled.\n\nAnd what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the New\nSun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other worlds\nto which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they count?\n\nBoth Ozymandias' and Severian's mass-murders of innocents will in theory\nensure the preservation of future generations. But if you're going to\ndifferentiate between their achievements - especially in the same breath\nas you use the word 'fascist' - then the ratio of those saved to those\nslaughtered seems significant." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240BCF7.7090308@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T16:48:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) happiness in The Knight", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\n*Puts on G. E. Moore mask*\n\n'And why is maximising that in the majority of the population good?'\n\nIorwerth\n\n(who really should be getting some work done instead of discussing \nethics)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because it is the only feedback that seems reliably correlated with\n'the good', is universal and unambigous, and is also objectively measurable?\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240C4E6.6040307@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T17:22:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nThe potential for nastyness you point out is a possibility that arises \nfor any moral system that tries to be \"objective\" (and both \nutilitarianism and duty-based ethics do this); the main difference \nwill just be the rhetoric employed. (\"Fret not, citizens, sometimes \nindividuals like yourselves must be sacrificed for the good of the \nstate.\") It's sort of an inherent risk, because the claim that morals \nare objective puts them somehow \"out there\" in the world rather than \n\"in here\" with your conscience; it implies that if an authority figure \nsees a particular action as right, and your culture approves that \njudgment, then if you see things differently you must simply be \nmistaken, your dissenting view is not likely to be respected." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but if you are using an objective system, you can fight back \neasily; science strives for objectivity, and generally bows to who has \nbetter data and explanations, not who is spouting the rhetoric. What \nabout when you have subjective systems? There you are denied even that \nbare chance of making a rational case against the current sub-goals." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...\n\nNow, to drag this whole deal into something that's slightly more \non-topic:\n\nThis has been done to death from certain perspectives, but I am \ninterested in the reasons *why* we let Severian off as lightly as we \ngenerally do. The guy is a mass-murderer. In bringing the New Sun, he \nwillfully killed more innocent people than Hitler. Yet, even if we're \ninclined to say that we don't \"approve\" of Severian or his actions in \nvarious ways, we generally don't talk about him in a way that really \ntakes this very seriously.\n\nLooking at it from a results-oriented perspective (utilitarianism, if \nyou like, but any such perspective will do) his actions are not only \njustified, they are unproblematic. A \"moral jury\" of utilitarians \nwould, in theory, not just find Severian \"not guilty\" of any \nwrongdoing - they would dismiss the case out of hand, Severian need \nfeel no remorse because he did precisely the right thing. And yet most \nof us would intuitively say that to contemplate killing an entire \nworld without so much as batting an eyelash is deeply psychopathic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not just unproblematic, but commendable. Severian _could_ have refused, \nand doomed the Urthians to their previous doom, but he did not, he took \nthat cross on himself. The situation is analogous to a doomed terminal \ndying patient (say, a 110 year old man), who somehow has multiple livers \nin perfect shape (bear with me), and if you, the doctor will take that \nburden on yourself, you can slice out those livers and give them to a \nbunch of other people who are about to perish of not-having-liver-ness, \nthus saving say a dozen lives while hastening another out the door." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Finding some kind of rule or duty that would justify Severian's action \nis a little more difficult, but possible. Such a perspective is a \nlittle more intuitive... Severian broke an important rule (and should \nfeel bad about that), but only to avoid breaking an even more \nimportant rule (which thus excuses him from punishment/sanction). In \nsuch a case the moral court might find Severian technically guilty, \nbut pronounce no sentence. And yet, aren't we still taking what \nSeverian did a little too lightly?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, we could take as a duty 'maximize life and happiness', but I don't \nthink that's what you are getting at." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian's defense is that the old world had to be destroyed to make \nway for the new; the rebirth of the planet/race unfortunately requires \nthe death of the old. But isn't this precisely the rhetoric used by \ntyrants and demagogues to justify horrific crimes? The old degenerate \nsociety, they say, needs to die in order to bring about a rebirth, a \nnew order. Their vision of a new utopia - perhaps advanced perfectly \nsincerely - requires a sacrifice, a cleansing of the old ways: blood \nand fire. Thinking of it this way are we likely to condone a \nmodern-day Severian who comes to us claiming that we all need to die \nto bring about some future paradise? When we bring it closer to home, \nwithout the benefit of hindsight (knowing that it will, after all, \nwork out for the best in the end), what we see is the case of one man \nwho takes the lives of billions in his hands based on his own notion \nof what needs to be done - and this is a person who freely admits that \nhe's not even sure if he's sane any more." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The difference is: Severian's plan /worked/. All the credit, all the \nblame...\nAnother thing: Severian is the rightful autarch of Urth; as a \nfeudal/fascist ruler, he claims\nultimate authority over his subjects. No wonder he wouldn't worry \nwhether he should do it or not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So a third perspective here is to find Severian guilty and hold him \nfully accountable; he should be punished for his horrific crimes, and \ncertainly not looked on with approval. Note that this doesn't preclude \nus for having some sympathy/understanding for the character: Severian \nwas perhaps acting on a deeply felt conviction, a religious or \nspiritual principle rather than an ethical one. If so then perhaps (if \nhis religious impulse was correct) he will be vindicated in a Higher \nCourt, but as for this world, we can only look upon the man with horror.\n\nI think that variations of these three ways of looking at things \nprobably cover most of the ways we would tend to treat a human being \nwho had done what Severian did. But I don't think that any of them \nquite match the actual reaction most of us have to Severian's \ncharacter. I think that we ultimately exempt him from deep judgment \nbecause, in some way, we don't feel that he *could* have done \notherwise. And you can only blame someone for doing something if they \nactually have a choice.\n\nWe get this impression that Severian has no free will in this \nparticular matter, it seems, from the fact that the narrator displays \na singular lack of doubt about what he's doing (and yet, does not come \noff as a fanatic either). The narrator speaks as if under the \nassumption that the reader could not possibly even doubt the rightness \nof this action, it simply can't be questioned. This much may seem \ntrivially obvious, I don't know, but I am leading up to a general \nquestion about just how we should take this." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or as if in a dream, or drugged. It could be that as Autarch, he has \nalready been judged or advised so many times, by people so far above the \nnorm in intelligence, knowledge, and experience that he doesn't give a \nflip about what the reader may think, he stands with the giants, and \ntheir appraisal is what matters." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One way to look at it is that Severian, as an author, is deliberately \nusing this literary device to attempt to keep us from asking him to \njustify his actions (presumably because he can't). Nobody seems to \nreally want to treat the book and the character as if this is all \nthere is to it, though. So what is *Wolfe* trying to do? It would seem \nuncharacteristic of him to be making a veiled attack on the notion of \nfree will. At least not as it applies to humans. Is the answer just \nthat we intuitively accept that Severian, as the Conciliator, *isn't* \nhuman? To a certain extent it is easy for us to see him as a sort of \ncog in the celestial machine, a sort of angel (like Tzadkiel) with his \nown destined role to play, and this is prepared for us quite early on, \nin the passages about Talos's play. But it seems to me that this can't \nbe all there is to it, because in every other way we *do* accept \nSeverian as human. This paints a very strange picture. Are we to think \nof Severian as a man or not? And if we do think of him as a man, what \nsort of strange view of free will are we embracing in doing so?\n'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not think the dual 'heavenly-New-Sun-with-no-real-free-will' and \n'human-Severian' is much of a problem; at least it wasn't for most of\nChristinaity, and their human portion was not even a torturer but a \ntortured." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Apologies for the long-windedness, but to make up for it I will try to \nsit down and be quiet now.\n-- Civet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "~Maru\nPerhaps I should follow the cat's xample.." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240CEDC.8040803@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T18:05:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<20050321104034.72813.qmail@web54205.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "nastler wrote:\nThis email is just polite applause from the gallery.\nAfter weeks of struggling through discussions on\n?Ethical Theory?, (interesting but not much of a\nspectator sport for the layman), I feel a sense of\npay-off after Civets last post.\n?Judging Severian? is a great topic and I’m hoping it\nsticks around a bit. Your three ethical judgements\npossible on Sev seem about right.\n1.\tHe may be a psycho but he done what had to be done.\n2.\tHe took a liberty, but the end justifies the means.\n3.\tHe is evil and billions died cause of what he did.\n(Footnote)\nBut, as you say, we readers perceive that Sev is a\ntool (“the tongs by which we are held?”) and judging\nhim may not be valid. The higher powers (whether\ndivine or secular hardly matter to the average\nUrthling) decide our fate according to their own\nvalues and objectives.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course it can be wondered where they\nget the right to do so; revenge hardly seems a good\nreason to." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From a philosophical Urthlings point of view, it could\nbe argued that maybe Typhon tries to wriggle out of\nthe grips by doing the “right” thing (evacuation) for\nthe “wrong” reason (continued divine monarchy) but he\nis cast down so Sev can do the “wrong” thing (Global\ntsunami) for the “right” reason (avoid ice future)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd read Typhon's downfall as due to his attempted\nusurpation- he starts too late, and in a bungled manner,\nand attempts to kill the righful New Sun once (or twice, I\nam not sure whether he did in the 'past' New Sun's life.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And is Sev comparable with one of us “true men” from\nthe “free” world? Well, if “all the world’s a stage”\nthen we are ALL cogs in that machine, designed to play\nour part as directed or (presumably) be replaced if\nour improvisations get out of hand. As Civet explained\nto me in a post last year, rebellion is neither\npossible nor desirable; “the show must go on” I\nsuppose. Whether the director is divine and\nintelligent or secular and emergent, our “bit-part”\nposition remains the same. Therefore, freewill equals\nillusion.\n\nDoes Wolfe not say something like \"best just to copy\nthe higher powers cause they are closer to God\", with\na PS that we can also hope they are not so corrupting\nan influence as be believes us to be on our own “lf”\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And in the tale of the proud Cock, did he not\nhave an angel say that they were one and all\nequally distant from God?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, with no philosophical tools to handle this I\ndon't see how a \"monkey see, monkey do\" approach leads\nto either ethical codes or free will. What do I know?\nScientists studying the brain also seem to find\nreasons to doubt the concept of \"free will\". So I\nsuppose whatever way we cut it, we are a manipulated\nspecies.\n\nOh well, thanks to Civet for a great post, and all the\nbest for the Vernal equinox celebrations to everyone,\nNastler\n(hoping the Philosopher Kings would get on with it and\nedict the “few simple rules” for a more ethical world,\nso the rest of us can all stop having to worry about\nit.)\n\nFootnote. This reminds me of when people want to\ndiscuss war (Iraq or generally) with me. I become\nparalysed by an inability to predict good outcomes\n(e.g. global liberal democracy and human rights)\ncoming from bad actions (e.g. bombing a family home).\nThe promised land out of sight as I focus on the\nvalley of death through which we are led. No doubt I’d\nbe an “Ice future” Urth philosopher, learning about\nthermodynamics from Master Ash as I denounce Abia with\nt-shirts and street theatre. Michael Ignatieff's\n?Political ethics in an age of terror? has been put on\nmy read list in an attempt to understand the\nrealpolitik from my position of cosy civil\nlibertarianism. I can’t say I’m looking forward to it\ntoo much?\n\n?Pelagic-dwelling, Mind-controlling, Alien Gods? No\nthanks!?\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240D295.5020005@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T18:21:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nWell, briefly, Iorwerth was astute in bringing up Kierkegaard, and \nthere's another aspect of the case that should be kept in mind for the \nkind of defenses we are likely to make for Severian.\n\nK. commented that one of the most common excuses that the religious \nwould make for Abraham is that, after all, everything *did* work out \nin the end, and God *did* ask him to do what he did, etc. This excuse \nis made from a point of view that's sort of \"above the action\", and \nwith the benefit of hindsight. But if you put yourself in Abraham's \nposition the situation is much worse than all that, in that:\n(a) Are you *sure* that that's God's voice you just heard? Couldn't \nyou be mistaken?\n(b) Is what the voice asked you to do consistent with the God you \nbelieve in?\n(c) If God actually takes away Isaac then, in context, he is a \npromise-breaker and deceiver. If you are really in the hands of an \nomnipotent deceiver then (a la Descartes's evil demon) you can't ever \nknow anything, or trust your own rational decisions. But if God \ndoesn't take Isaac away then why would he ask for the sacrifice, and \nisn't that needlessly cruel?\n\nIn that situation most of us would have a real problem carrying \nthrough with what Abraham did. And we could supply no real *rational* \njustification for our actions. As far as we are capable of judging, \nmorally, his actions have to be condemned because there's simply no \nground for approving them.\n\nNow, Severian's case. He suspects that he may be mad. He also accepts \nthat a large number of apparently reasonable, sane people do not agree \nwith the decision he is making and will try to stop him given a \nchance. In his position, is this not a strong indication that you may \nbe mistaken? Further: one thing that Severian does *not* do is engage \nin rational/moral debate over the issue. He may fight to the death, \nbut does not seem interested in trying to convince people not to \noppose him. The implication (to me) seems to be that he knows that he \ncan supply no rational reason that will satisfactorily justify his \ndecision.\n\nThere are also many ways in which Sev's position does not parallel \nAbraham's, and for that reason I don't want to make a discussion of \nAbraham central to understanding Severian. But what I am getting at is \nthat if we really attempt to judge Severian the way we would judge a \nreal person, then we can't accept \"happily every after\" endings or \nappeals to divine guidance as adequate justifications.\n\nBut we do, pretty much unanimously, think of Severian's actions as \njustified. While I am sort of playing the role of the Accuser here, my \ninterest isn't really in convincing people to condemn Sev, what I \nwould like to get at is a deeper understanding of how and why we do \naccept him as justified in his actions.\n\nSort of half-related, someone also raised a good point to me about how \nin a sense our judgments of Severian, or Urth in general, seem only \nsemi-real in the first place (even for a work of fiction) because \nSeverian has a way of talking as if he were half-dreaming. This \nstrikes a chord with me; Urth never seemed real as a \"place\" to me but \nhad the sort of geography of a dream, or subconscious realm. In this \nrespect I do think that perhaps a comparison with WK might be in order \nas you say.\n\nCivet\n\nPS - I'm not sure what you mean by \"The Watchmen\" being a \"fascist \nwork\", any more than \"1984\" is a \"totalitarian work\" or \"Animal Farm\" \nis a \"communist work\". \"V for Vendetta\" has a stronger connection with \nfascism but it is fairly clearly anti-fascist in viewpoint." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Allow me to draw a parallel with WK; does it not seem to you that Urth, \ndying Urth, is more than a little uncanny and bizaare? What logic\nis there to it, what substanial reality? it seems almost a dream of \nmadness, or a warped parody of what should be (everything decaying and in\nruins.) We pass from place to place with little propelling plot, in \npicaresque manner, though it feels intuitively that there is a vast \nhidden logic\nwebs of meaning (I thinking of the ambience of \"Foucault's Pendulum\" \nhere, but less factual and explicit). Does not Old Urth seem unreal, as \nunreal as the angel in the Knight would have seemed in Muspell?\nUrth in TBOTNS is lit by an old sun; its inhabitants seem unreal- we \nknow this by how many of them turn out to not be- even Agilus, a basic \nscammer is suspected of otherworldly origins- and it doesnot seem \nunreasonable! When a New Sun comes, and everything is brought to a higher\nreality, when we move up a cabalic tree, (like a day of judgement) is it \nunreasonable to expect some shadows of the old world to pass away?\n\nI say we see the unreality of Urth and do not condemn the slaying of \nshadows.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<023f01c52f50$4dd3ea30$2423d2d1@VALUED7B9600FA>", "from": { "name": "Alan Lewis", "address": "alanarc at frontiernet.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T18:30:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of Watchman, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<4240C4E6.6040307@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Personally I agree with some of the points already raised defending both The \nWatchman, and Severian, so I'll try to add my own views without repeating \ntheirs unduly.\n\nI disagree with the premise some have advanced that because something \nhappens in a work of fiction -- like fascism succeeding -- should somehow \nequate to the writer endorsing such things. Did anyone think Orwell \nbelieved in authoritarian societies because he wrote 1984? There clearly we \nrealize the reverse is true. Watchman is problematic perhaps because it \nlacks a perfect protaganist that we know we're supposed to identify with. \nRorschach is tempting in this way, but let's face it, he's basically a \nruthless psycho. But this is part of the point, not one of these main \ncharacters is really correct, certainly not Dr Manhattan or Ozy, so just \nbecause they 'win' I think it is very wrong to see that as saying they were \nright. Nor does a writer have to agree with everything he has his \ncharacters say. To make interesting dramatic conflict, he should just make \nthem internally consistant and three dimensional, and on those grounds I \nthink Moore succeeds in Watchman.\n\nBut if people really want to know what Moore thinks of fascism, you should \nread the (I think) vastly superior though less famous V is For Vendetta. \nSoon to be ruined by Hollywood no doubt as they adapt it. So far poor Alan \nMoore is 0 for 2 with From Hell, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. \nMaybe someday they'll make a movie from one of his works, and actually use \nsomething he, you know, wrote in the process.\n\nAs for Severian and his choice, we have to remember again that Severian was \nchosen to make the choice he makes, that indeed, his life is tampered with \nto produce the individual he becomes, in order to make the choice he makes. \nCan we really say then he had any true choice in bringing the New Sun? The \nfact that he can feel guilty about it and aware of the repercussions and \nfeel sympathy for those that oppose him attest to his humanity, such as it \nis.\n\nAnd I think the worthy Dan'l is being disingenuous in calling Dune fascist, \nthen seeming surprised that the lovers of the book feel offended. Let's \nkeep the term fascist for books that more clearly deserve it, like Starship \nTroopers .\n\nAlan " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240DA60.8020701@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T18:54:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) 5HC : Skinner, Turing and happiness", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nThere's an example from a book of ethical dillemas [1] on how \nfollowing Kant's categorical imperative regarding honesty made a \nfemale correspondant of his (and probably by extension everyone around \nher) extremely _unhappy_. Utilitarianism has a place in any well \nthought out moral philosophy, but it probably shouldn't be the only \nconsideration. Happiness at large tends to mean the happiness of the \nmajority in the eyes of many [2]; this can lead to people suggesting \nsome fairly twisted things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "'And ye shall know them by their fruit'?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(At a risk of introducing a political argument into the thread, I'd \nask people to examine the position of the leader of the British \nOpposition towards the travelling minority, and whether it'd be easier \nfor him to make his case were he a utilitarian.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I'm visiting England tomorrow. I'll pick up some papers and see if \nI can." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd have argued that a Christian is someone who doesn't want to \nsuffer the eternal torment of Hell, and so believes in Jesus and does \nwhat their church tells'em." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's no actual set definition of what a Christian believes (bar the \nNician (sp?) creed, and maybe not even that, if you're a liberal \nAnglican). There has been, since the inception of the religion, a \nstrand that believes that either\n\na) No one is in Hell, since God is merciful\nb) Hell is temporary, intended to reform, for the same reason.\n\nIt's called Universalism; there's some textual evidence that Paul was \none [3]. It lost steam once most people in the West were Christain, \nlargly because the worry that Uncle Bob, the virtuous worshipper of \nZeus, would have somewhat unfairly wound up in Hell became less of an \nissue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Too bad; the idea that one should suffer infinitely for merely finitely \ncrimes is a really lousy one, which has caused untold mental torment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's tempting to suggest that someone whose primary motivation for \nbeing a Christian was fear of Hell probably wouldn't do a good job of \nescaping Hell (if indeed, it exists and there's anyone in there) \nbecase they have the wrong motivation for what they do.\n\n[3] On the other hand, there's textual evidence for almost any view \nof Paul that you wish to put forwards." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On second thoughts, if you're correct, I doubt anyone _should_ have \na problem with such a motivation, as it's quite clearly unselfish. \nMich ink has no doubt been spilled on such issues.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Arrgh. The point was that even apparently unselfish, principled \nactions can be as well, if not better, understood as enlightened \nselfishness as well. But fortunately no ink need die for our debate. \nNo, 'tis the electrons and phospors who shall suffer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think my chief problem with this is that they could probably be \nunderstood just as well in a Jungian or Freudian outlook, depending \ntaste - they all tend to reduce motivations to one primary thing, \npower, sex, happiness, whereas we always have several, including those \nwe aren't aware of. Also, not having access to people's inner \nthoughts, we can't know.\n\nI'd like to observe that to a certain extent, I'm one of those people \nyou describe; the problem is - my inability to be happy while those \naround me are unhappy doeas not imply that, in order to do what I must \nto make them happy, I'll wind up happy. It just means that if they're \nunhappy, so am I.\n\nIorwerth" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wait- I must be misunderstanding you here; if truly they being unhappy \nmeans you too are unhappy, then their being happy is a *necessary* \npre-recequisite, thusly for you to be happy you must previously had \nhelped them become happy (if necessary). If the link only works as a \ndowner, well that just sucks.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00e101c52f6d$8188e3e0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T21:59:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000201c52f24$89ba1910$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\nTrue. Ozymandias chose to sacrifice the few to save the many. Severian\ndoes it the other way around. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Crush responded:\nWhen one considers the generations unborn on Urth if the New Sun does\nnot come, then the opposite is true." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To which Tony Ellis counters:\nIf what counts is the number of descendants the survivors of a mass\nslaughter might one day have, then mass slaughter on any scale, no\nmatter how horrifically vast, can always be justified as the killing of\nthe few. We tend to measure these things in terms of actual people\nkilled." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hm. You are aware that for the Hierodules those unborn numbers have actually \nlived, right? It is not supposition for them as it would be for you and me \nand Hitler and Stalin and Ozymandias. There is simply no comparison." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the New\nSun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other worlds\nto which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they count?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Who's to say humanity would have been transplanted? There is only one ship \noff the planet and no one else has interstellar capabilities. As The Short \nSun shows, transplanting humanity into the stars is no simple task. I'd say \nmany fewer generations are available to humanity without the New Sun." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Both Ozymandias' and Severian's mass-murders of innocents will in theory\nensure the preservation of future generations. But if you're going to\ndifferentiate between their achievements - especially in the same breath\nas you use the word 'fascist' - then the ratio of those saved to those\nslaughtered seems significant." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All fascists are not mass murderers. In fact, the fascists are probably not \namong the top 2 or 3 mass murderers. So I don't know why the use of the term \nfascist in this case is anymore jarring than using more mundane terms like \n\"socialist\", \"atheist\", or \"collectivist\". But since you believe the ratios \nare significant, I hope I have shown that Severian does okay against \nOzymandias...especially since Ozy could not be assured that his plan would \nsave a single life while Severian could know the benefits of his actions and \nthe costs of his inactions into the distant mists of Time.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370503222247471e36df@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T22:47:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of Watchman, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<023f01c52f50$4dd3ea30$2423d2d1@VALUED7B9600FA>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:30:39 -0500, Alan Lewis wrote:\nWatchman is problematic perhaps because it\nlacks a perfect protaganist that we know we're supposed to identify with." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree: I think we are to identify with both Nite Owls, possibly both\nSilk Spectres, and definitely the folks on the street corner." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if people really want to know what Moore thinks of fascism, you should\nread the (I think) vastly superior though less famous V is For Vendetta." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "AMEN! And also Miracleman - the three together form a sort of trilogy about\nheroes and what they do to us." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I think the worthy Dan'l is being disingenuous in calling Dune fascist,\nthen seeming surprised that the lovers of the book feel offended. Let's\nkeep the term fascist for books that more clearly deserve it, like Starship\nTroopers ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I'm being disingenuous.\n\nBut ST facist? A book that clearly opposes racism among humans? That\ntakes a stand against military conscription?\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is. \nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-23T00:30:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of WatchmEn, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503222247471e36df@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yeah, I'm being disingenuous. \n\nBut ST facist? A book that clearly opposes racism among humans? That\ntakes a stand against military conscription?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nYou are still joking, I take it, but in case you are not, I will point out \nFascism is clearly definable as an evolutionary strategy. \n\nFascism = the good of the genetic collective must supercede that of the \nindividual within it, ((in order that that collective may have victory over \nother groups or at least survive)). \n\n \n\nTDKR is a comic book \n\nWATCHMEN is focussed on the rueful observation that fascism is **necessary** \nfor group survival even if it is horrible and the people who are the active \nlevers of it are not nice. There are plenty of not nice people there who \nare not fascists, incidentally - Rorshac being one. \n\nV FOR VENDETTA is a much nicer but much inferior work, for the simple reason \nthat it does not acknowledge that fascism is necessary. The fascists are \nsimply nasty, bad, people. \n\nST is very simply fascist, on the level of the collective human race vs the \nother nonhuman races. It has no doubts about its message which is why it \nis not much fun to read. \n\nAll classical societies were fascist. All the classical virtues were \nfascist. Fascism was merely necessary morality. \n\n \n\nFascism is not necessarly bad: all pagan religions (and Judaism, but not \nChristianity or Islam) were fascist. The real worldwide (or universewide) \ngenocides come from group centered fascists but from those who want to \nimpose some Universal Plan on humanity for its Good: and the DUNE sequence \nis about this, the metamorphosis of a group from the dull normality of \nbelieving they are the Chosen People to one of believing that they have a \nmission to transform all of humanity to the Golden Path. \n\n \n\nWolfe is not fascist in any of his stories, because as a Christian he \nbelieves in a collective of the spirit not of the genes. \n\nUnsurprisingly there is a lot of genocide in his books ;-) \n\n \n\n. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050323101618.43139.qmail@web54204.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "nastler", "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk" }, "date": "2005-03-23T02:16:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<4240D295.5020005@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:\n\"I say we see the unreality of Urth and do not condemn\nthe slaying of \nshadows.\"\n\nI disagree.\nUrth only seems unreal because we see it through Sev,\nand he is not well in his head. Compare with the Urth\nsections related for us in SS.\n\"Urth IS real (and I, unfortunately, am nastler).\"\n\nMaru said:\n\"let us not forget the play in TBotNS; I once was told\nthat the\nplay was like a skeleton key to the whole cycle. It\nmakes a certain\nsense that there would be a parallel between the old\npeople in the\nplay being hunted and killed (I'm not sure about the\nkilling bit- its\nbeen a while since I read the play) and actual 'Old\nSun'ers being\nkilled. The whole eschatological cleansing of the\nworld, Apocalypse\nnow, Jerusalem being made anew, and a third of the\npopulation shall be\nstruck down etc. etc.\"\n\n\nMESCHIA: \"Do you think you are more than a corpse? You\nare less\"\nThis line of the play, spoken by Sev, is his opinion\nof his fellow Urthers. It is what allows him to do\nwhat he does." } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050323103118.82411.qmail@web54209.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "nastler", "address": "nastler at yahoo.dk" }, "date": "2005-03-23T02:31:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT - Superhero family dramas", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Batman is a stern father figure (in reality a\nmiddle-aged bachelor) and all his enemies are his\n\"sons\" who act outrageously (gay?) to attract his\nattention. He therefore creates and shapes his enemies\nactions and attributes.\ncf. Spiderman who is a(n outrageous) son to all his\nmost famous enemies (Osbourne, Conners, Octavius,\netc.)\n\nnastler\n\n--- Iorwerth Thomas skrev:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Regarding TDK, I think the British sf magazine SFX\nhad a feature on it in \nwhich Miller was of the opinion that most of\nGotham's villans were as they \nwere due to the presence of Batman; the theory put\nforwards by the tv \npsychologist that Batman is the locus of the chaos\n(since criminals define \nthemselves against him) is in fact what is going on.\n This suggests a \nreading in which the events of the graphic novel are\nnothing but a psychotic \nwish fulfillment fantasy for Bruce Wayne; a nice\ncomment on some \nundercurrents of the superhero genre. On that\nreading, it's no more facist \nthan Spinrad's 'The Iron Dream'." } ] }, { "message_id": "<004a01c52fae$7abfc3d0$a51b0101@gensym.com>", "from": { "name": "David Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T05:44:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of WatchmEn, Severian", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All classical societies were fascist. All the classical virtues were\nfascist. Fascism was merely necessary morality." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Umm, I don't think that word means what you think it means. It is not a\nsynonym for \"authoritarian\" or \"imperialist\" or \"social-system-I-don't-like\"\nany more than \"communist\" is.\n\nJust for starters, fascism requires a capitalist underpinning, which didn't\nexist in any classical society. If you wish to say that the fascists claimed\nto believe in the classical virtues, then there's a possibility of\ndiscussion, but you have the causal relationship reversed here.\n\nThere hasn't been much discussion of the economic basis of the Commonwealth,\nwhich seems at first glance to be not unlike the late Byzantine Empire on\nwhich it is loosely based. There are clearly merchants, there are clearly\nstout yeoman farmers, there is a nobility, etc.\n\nHowever, there is also totally unbelieveable prohibition of land-based trade\n(why do the inhabitants of Saltus delve in the ruins if there is no trade\nthat would allow them to sell off the things they discover, for example?).\nIt's clear that there is some sort of latifundia system (run by the\nnobility) going on in the areas relatively near Nessus, and that the\npeasantry (and the urban poor) flee to the wild lands to establish farms,\nbut who buys the produce of those farms and how is it transported?\nApparently river travel is permitted, but there aren't rivers everywhere.\nHow is Nessus fed?\n\nWhere are the factories that produce the energy weapons used in the battles\nwith Ascia? Are all those weapons leftover from a previous industrial\ncivilization? I doubt it.\n\nWhere is the Detroit or Pittsburgh (or Shanghai, for that matter) to\ncorrespond to Nessus's New York or Washington?\n\n(It's clear there is some level of trade with the cacogens, but apparently\nnot a lot as their devices are extremely rare and expensive.)\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001101c52fae$dde40390$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-23T05:47:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of Watchman, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503222247471e36df@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But if people really want to know what Moore thinks of fascism, you should\nread the (I think) vastly superior though less famous V is For Vendetta." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I hope I didn't say I thought Moore is/was a fascist. I said I believe THE \nWATCHMEN is fascist. The interpretations that ameliorate its most \nstraightforward reading have made me see that Moore *might* have not \nintended it: THE WATCHMEN *might* be flawed in that the author's intended \ndrift is so nuanced that the work actually conveys a theme that is the \nopposite of what Moore wanted." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Fascism = the good of the genetic collective must supercede that of the\nindividual within it, ((in order that that collective may have victory over\nother groups or at least survive))." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I remember Iorwerth said we should establish a definition for \"fascism\" \nbefore continuing. I'd say this declaration of terms from Andy bears out \nthat admonition. IMO this definition is both too narrow and far far to \nbroad.\n\nPersonally, I don't think I use the term \"fascism\" lightly, and while I do \nconsider TDKR and WATCHMEN to be uniquely fascist among the most popular fan \nfiction in my experience (partly because one influenced the other IMO), I \ndon't yet see the same thing in DUNE or STARSHIP TROOPERS or SF generally -- \ncertainly not to the same extent. Fascism is not merely the opposite of \nLibertarianism.\n\nBut since I don't think refining a definition of fascism to be useful to \nthis list, and I don't think this subject can progress without one, I regret \nmy original superfluous interjection regarding THE WATCHMEN.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<42417442.5040601@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T05:51:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of WatchmEn, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<004a01c52fae$7abfc3d0$a51b0101@gensym.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Lebling wrote:\nWhere are the factories that produce the energy weapons used in the battles\nwith Ascia? Are all those weapons leftover from a previous industrial\ncivilization? I doubt it.\n\nWhere is the Detroit or Pittsburgh (or Shanghai, for that matter) to\ncorrespond to Nessus's New York or Washington?\n\n(It's clear there is some level of trade with the cacogens, but apparently\nnot a lot as their devices are extremely rare and expensive.)\n\n-- Dave Lebling, aka vizcacha\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do not know the answer to the other questions, but\nfor those, remember, we are talking distant aeons into\nthe future, and they are in the southern hemisphere anyway, so\nwe wouldn't hear of most of those cities..\n\n\n\n~Maru\n\nThat is Not Dead Which Can Eternal Lie,\nAnd With Strange Aeons, Even Death May Die." } ] }, { "message_id": "<424175AD.3020506@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T05:57:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<20050323101618.43139.qmail@web54204.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "nastler wrote:\nMaru said:\n\"I say we see the unreality of Urth and do not condemn\nthe slaying of \nshadows.\"\n\nI disagree.\nUrth only seems unreal because we see it through Sev,\nand he is not well in his head. Compare with the Urth\nsections related for us in SS.\n\"Urth IS real (and I, unfortunately, am nastler).\"\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you so sure? Certainly Urth seems\nunreal through Severian's eyes, but considering\nthe actual events he narrates, I'd call it dreamlike & unreal\nno matter who narrates them. Who could put the stamp\nof sanity onto Talos' play? on the Green Man? on the House Absolute\nor the tale Thecla recounts about Father Inire, or for that matter Thecla\nherself? Did not the vignette of the librarian seem a shred stolen from\na Borgesian world of un-possibility?\n/hasn't read the Short Sun books.\n/me hangs head in shame." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maru said:\n\"let us not forget the play in TBotNS; I once was told\nthat the\nplay was like a skeleton key to the whole cycle. It\nmakes a certain\nsense that there would be a parallel between the old\npeople in the\nplay being hunted and killed (I'm not sure about the\nkilling bit- its\nbeen a while since I read the play) and actual 'Old\nSun'ers being\nkilled. The whole eschatological cleansing of the\nworld, Apocalypse\nnow, Jerusalem being made anew, and a third of the\npopulation shall be\nstruck down etc. etc.\"\n\n\nMESCHIA: \"Do you think you are more than a corpse? You\nare less\"\nThis line of the play, spoken by Sev, is his opinion\nof his fellow Urthers. It is what allows him to do\nwhat he does.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ya nailed it. That was practically the exact line\nI was thinking of.\n\n\n~Maru\nThat's unpossible~" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-23T08:03:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) In defense of WatchmEn, Severian", "in_reply_to": "<004a01c52fae$7abfc3d0$a51b0101@gensym.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Lebling writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All classical societies were fascist. All the classical virtues were\nfascist. Fascism was merely necessary morality." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Umm, I don't think that word means what you think it means. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nfasces = bundle of sticks, is what it means: a group that cannot be broken, \nbecause it is a collective. \n\nI am not under the illusion that it's a synonym for \"nasty\", in fact that \nwas very much the point of my last post. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c52fe0$dcac8240$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T11:45:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<00e101c52f6d$8188e3e0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wrote:\nAnd what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the\nNew Sun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other\nworlds to which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they \ncount?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Crush countered:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Who's to say humanity would have been transplanted?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Master Ashe says.\n\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII \n\nHumanity does not die if Severian fails to bring the New Sun. It is\ntaken to better worlds, where it continues. \n\nSeverian’s murder of millions can’t be said to preserve any more unborn\ngenerations than Ozymandias’ murder of thousands." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "since you believe the ratios are significant, I hope I have shown\nthat Severian does okay against Ozymandias..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, no. See above." } ] }, { "message_id": "<001801c52ffc$e3672920$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-23T15:06:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c52fe0$dcac8240$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\nAnd what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the\nNew Sun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other\nworlds to which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they\ncount?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Crush countered:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Who's to say humanity would have been transplanted?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Master Ashe says.\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Humanity does not die if Severian fails to bring the New Sun. It is\ntaken to better worlds, where it continues. Severian's murder of\nmillions can't be said to preserve any more unborn\ngenerations than Ozymandias' murder of thousands." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very good point, excellent reference. I can see how you can read it that way \nif you choose to. However, I understood \"many of your people\" to be a \nfraction of a small remnant of humanity surviving at the end of Old Sun's \nlifecycle, and I understood \"better worlds\" to mean \"better than Urth is at \nthe end of the Old Sun's life cycle.\" Green and Blue in \"The Short Sun\" are \nundoubtedly better than Master Ashe's world, but they are hardly paradises \nfor the colonists. It seems to me that in Ashe's stream of time, many will \ndie early and unfruitful as the Old Sun dies out, and humanity is finished \nas far as being a species with a significant future -- and the Hierodules \nare seeking a significant future for humanity. They'll hold on on the \nTyphon's and Tzadkiel's starcrossers and on a few scattered systems. \nSeverian has seen both outcomes. He can examine them at any time. The New \nSun is the outcome he chose. In \"UotNS\" he appreciates that others could see \nit differently. Perhaps if you were on Severian's ship, you would be among \nthose trying to assassinate him like someone going back in Time to \nassassinate Hitler when he was a failed Art student.\n\nBut Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes. He's not a Stalin, Hitler, or \nOzymandias killing multitudes to remake the world according to some vision \nin their own minds. He's a surgeon performing triage on a dying world.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jason Willard", "address": "funesmem6 at msn.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T18:25:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Definitions of 'Fascism'", "in_reply_to": "<001101c52fae$dde40390$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hope this isn't too long!\n\nRobert O. Paxton in his book The Anatomy of Fascism says: \"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.\"\n\nRoger Griffin defines fascism as \"a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism.\"\n\nUmberto Eco lists the following 14 traits of 'ur-fascism': \n\"...But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. \n1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages-in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.\n\nThis new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, \"the combination of different forms of belief or practice\"; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.\n\nAs a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.\n\nOne has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.\n\nIf you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge-that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.\n\n2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.\n\n3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering's alleged statement (\"When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun\") to the frequent use of such expressions as \"degenerate intellectuals,\" \"eggheads,\" \"effete snobs,\" \"universities are a nest of reds.\" The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.\n\n4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.\n\n5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.\n\n6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old \"proletarians\" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.\n\n7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.\n\n8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. \n\n9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a \"final solution\" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.\n\n10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.\n\n11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as \"Long Live Death!\"). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.\n\n12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons-doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.\n\n13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view-one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.\n\nBecause of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against \"rotten\" parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was \"I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples\"-\"maniples\" being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.\n\n14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show...\"\n\nSo, I don't know if this particular word, 'fascism', is the one we want to be using so frequently... or we should at least be more aware of its subtleties. \n\n ----- Original Message ----- \n From: James Wynn " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-23T22:08:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001801c52ffc$e3672920$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I too thought that was a great reference, and brings into even sharper \ncontrast Severian's choice. And I think Crush's words here are revealing of \nsomething, though I am hesitant to assert exactly what it means. Sev is a \nsurgeon for Urth, for his \"world\". This \"world\" is not equatable with the \npeople on it (almost all of them die) or their future generations (because \nthey could just as easily be born on another world, though the proportion \nmay or may not be exactly the same). He is not saving his \"race\", because \nhumans already exist elsewhere in the universe and, ultimately, the form of \nlife that comes to dominate the rejuvenated world may be human-descended but \nis not necessarily \"human\" as we'd understand the term. What is Severian \nsaving? We could try to answer with a name, \"Urth\", but even the *name* \nchanges (and if name-changes are suggestive of anything, they are \nsuggestions that the named entity being referred to has changed).\n\nThe fact that the answer to this question (\"What is Severian saving?\") \nseemed so clear, and yet becomes so murky when we try to focus on it, to me \nindicates that there is more to our intuitive understanding of BotNS than we \nare commonly aware of.\n\nIn a side note, I've had a bizarre afternoon. Out of 4 papers I saw \npresented today, all four mentioned torture and 3 of them explicitly used \nthe term \"torturer\" - despite there being little to no reason for that \nsubject to even come up. (2 were on abortion, 1 on character issues, and 1 \non addiction). Synchronicity...\n\n-- Civet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes. He's not a Stalin, Hitler, \nor Ozymandias killing multitudes to remake the world according to some \nvision in their own minds. He's a surgeon performing triage on a dying \nworld.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001001c53040$15127ae0$f13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-23T23:07:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Crush, arguing with Tony:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "And what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the\nNew Sun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other\nworlds to which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they\ncount?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush countered:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Who's to say humanity would have been transplanted?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Master Ashe says.\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Humanity does not die if Severian fails to bring the New Sun. It is\ntaken to better worlds, where it continues. Severian's murder of\nmillions can't be said to preserve any more unborn\ngenerations than Ozymandias' murder of thousands." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Very good point, excellent reference. I can see how you can read it that\nway\nif you choose to. However, I understood \"many of your people\" to be a\nfraction of a small remnant of humanity surviving at the end of Old Sun's\nlifecycle, and I understood \"better worlds\" to mean \"better than Urth is at\nthe end of the Old Sun's life cycle.\" Green and Blue in \"The Short Sun\" are\nundoubtedly better than Master Ashe's world, but they are hardly paradises\nfor the colonists. It seems to me that in Ashe's stream of time, many will\ndie early and unfruitful as the Old Sun dies out, and humanity is finished\nas far as being a species with a significant future -- and the Hierodules\nare seeking a significant future for humanity. They'll hold on on the\nTyphon's and Tzadkiel's starcrossers and on a few scattered systems." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You forget that Typhon \"once ruled this planet, and many more.\" (SWORD,\np.-188) The survival of humanity does not depend on what happens on Urth, as\nI've said before. To remove any reasonable doubt, I submit the following\nquote:\n\nSeverian to Apheta: URTH, p.-135, both hb & pb\n------------------------------------------------------\n\"Is Urth really so important to you?\"\n She shook her head.\n \"Then why bother with it or me?\"\n \"Because your race is important to us. It would be far\nless laborious if we could deal with it all at once, but you\nare sown over tens of thousands of worlds, and we cannot.\"\n----------------------------------------------------" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian has seen both outcomes. He can examine them at any time. The New\nSun is the outcome he chose. In \"UotNS\" he appreciates that others could\nsee\nit differently. Perhaps if you were on Severian's ship, you would be among\nthose trying to assassinate him like someone going back in Time to\nassassinate Hitler when he was a failed Art student.\n\nBut Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes. He's not a Stalin, Hitler,\nor\nOzymandias killing multitudes to remake the world according to some vision\nin their own minds. He's a surgeon performing triage on a dying world." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The \"ice future\" was a contrived consequence of Man's uppity behavior. The\ncoming of the New Sun, and the death and destruction it entailed for Man's\nancestral home, was a symbolic sacrifice to appease a vengeful Increate.\nThis is not merely my opinion; it is what the text says:\n\nTzadkiel to Sev: URTH, p.-153\n----------------------------------------------------\n \"Or if you wish it put in another way, you have already\npassed our testing, which was an examination of the future\nyou will create. You are the New Sun. You will be returned\nto your Urth, and the White Fountain will go with you.\nThe death agonies of the world you know will be offered to\nthe Increate. And they will be indescribable--continents\nwill founder, as has been said. Much that is beautiful will\nperish, and with it most of your race; but your home will be reborn.\"\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nThis isn't the first time I've posted this quote, but the\nsweetness-and-light variety of Christians seem to find it disturbing. I\ncan't help that; I didn't write it, but there it is.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<008501c530a8$34258400$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-24T11:32:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001001c53040$15127ae0$f13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It seems to me that in Ashe's stream of time, many will\ndie early and unfruitful as the Old Sun dies out, and humanity is finished\nas far as being a species with a significant future -- and the Hierodules\nare seeking a significant future for humanity. They'll hold on on the\nTyphon's and Tzadkiel's starcrossers and on a few scattered systems." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You forget that Typhon \"once ruled this planet, and many more.\" (SWORD,\np.-188)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay. But for all we know, he may be referring to Blue and Green and other \nsuch colonies founded by the Whorl. In that case, it is hardly a thriving \nempire." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The survival of humanity does not depend on what happens on Urth, as\nI've said before. To remove any reasonable doubt, I submit the following\nquote:\n\nSeverian to Apheta: URTH, p.-135, both hb & pb\n------------------------------------------------------\n\"Is Urth really so important to you?\"\n She shook her head.\n \"Then why bother with it or me?\"\n \"Because your race is important to us. It would be far\nless laborious if we could deal with it all at once, but you\nare sown over tens of thousands of worlds, and we cannot.\"\n----------------------------------------------------" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Doesn't this quote suggest that the opposite is true? That the future of \nhumanity hinges largely on the fate of Urth? Humanity may survive if Urth \ngoes cold...heck, it most certainly will survive on the Tzadikel since the \ntravel beyond Time itself...they might survive for millenia on other planets \nand on ships like the Whorl like pigmy wooly mammoths on isolated islands, \nbut there will be no significant human civilization, no Green Man, and no \nHierodules." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes...He's a surgeon\nperforming triage on a dying world." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"ice future\" was a contrived consequence of Man's uppity behavior. The\ncoming of the New Sun, and the death and destruction it entailed for Man's\nancestral home, was a symbolic sacrifice to appease a vengeful Increate.\nThis is not merely my opinion; it is what the text says:\n\nTzadkiel to Sev: URTH, p.-153\n----------------------------------------------------\n\"You are the New Sun. You will be returned\nto your Urth, and the White Fountain will go with you.\nThe death agonies of the world you know will be offered to\nthe Increate. And they will be indescribable--continents\nwill founder, as has been said. Much that is beautiful will\nperish, and with it most of your race; but your home will\nbe reborn.\"\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nThis isn't the first time I've posted this quote, but the\nsweetness-and-light variety of Christians seem to find it disturbing. I\ncan't help that; I didn't write it, but there it is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At risk of being identified for the first time in my life with some \n\"sweetness-and-light\" brigade, I have to ask for more support than this. \nThis quote does not say the Sun was wounded by Hierodules..not for Man's \nuppity behavior or anything else. The line about the \"death agonies\" of Urth \nbeing \"offered to the Increate\" is enigmatic but it is surely a metaphor -- \nfor what, I have no idea. If the New Sun *is* some sort of \nvirgin-into-the-volcano sacrifice (an angle belied by the Apheta quote you \noffered), there is no evidence that the Increate has ASKED for that \nsacrifice or that he/she is in any way involved.\n\nSo much could be made clear if I understood how Severian WAS the New Sun \n(which he and Apheta are somehow the parents of as well) or why a white \nfountain follows him to Urth and decides to plant itself in the Sun.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-24T14:25:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001801c52ffc$e3672920$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/23/05 5:05 PM, James Wynn at thewynns at earthlink.net wrote:\nTony Ellis wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Master Ashe says.\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Humanity does not die if Severian fails to bring the New Sun. It is\ntaken to better worlds, where it continues. Severian's murder of\nmillions can't be said to preserve any more unborn\ngenerations than Ozymandias' murder of thousands." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Very good point, excellent reference. I can see how you can read it that way\nif you choose to. However, I understood \"many of your people\" to be a\nfraction of a small remnant of humanity surviving at the end of Old Sun's\nlifecycle, and I understood \"better worlds\" to mean \"better than Urth is at\nthe end of the Old Sun's life cycle.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Even if the Urthians who would be evacuated would be only a fraction of\nUrth's population, they'd probably be more numerous than those who survive\nthe New Sun's coming are; and hence their descendants would be more numerous\nthan the descendants of Urth's survivors in the timeline Sev picks." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Green and Blue in \"The Short Sun\" are\nundoubtedly better than Master Ashe's world" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They're better than being drowned, too." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian has seen both outcomes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Iirc, he hasn't seen the New Sun, just heard about it from the green man.\nAnd when he did so he didn't know that the cost of the New Sun's arrival\nwould be the death of Urth's current population." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps he can (though, given his mental condition, his ability to\n\"objectively analyze\" anything seems questionable), but does he? He doesn't\nhave any inkling of the New Sun's true cost until Tzadkiel tells him at the\ntrial (p. 153, hardcover edition), and iirc he never undertakes any analysis\nbefore deciding to carry out his \"mission.\" In fact, even after Tzadkiel's\nwords he apparently still doesn't realize the full cost of the New Sun until\nafter it arrives: on p. 295, he thinks \"When the New Sun arrived, our\nCommonwealth would require a ruler who understood what had taken place,\" not\nrealizing that after the New Sun arrives there will be no Commonwealth. So\nany analysis he had made before the fact would be flawed.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00c601c530f9$cf872e20$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-24T21:16:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\nMaster Ashe says.\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I understood \"many of your people\" to be a\nfraction of a small remnant of humanity surviving at the end of Old Sun's\nlifecycle, and I understood \"better worlds\" to mean \"better than Urth is \nat\nthe end of the Old Sun's life cycle.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Even if the Urthians who would be evacuated would be only a fraction of\nUrth's population, they'd probably be more numerous than those who survive\nthe New Sun's coming are; and hence their descendants would be more \nnumerous\nthan the descendants of Urth's survivors in the timeline Sev picks." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't know why that would be. The Cold Urth generations are surely much \nless fruitful, die earlier, and lose more in childhood than the New Urth \ngenerations or generations on planets like Blue and Green. Each generation \nthat is only a little more fruitful will yield exponential increases in only \na few centuries. I have no idea how many Urthlings survived the Deluge, but \nI'm guessing more than you are, I think." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Green and Blue in \"The Short Sun\" are\nundoubtedly better than Master Ashe's world" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "They're better than being drowned, too." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but now you are being argumentative. They can't all be evacuated or \nMaster Ashe would be studying a depopulated planet." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Severian has seen both outcomes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iirc, he hasn't seen the New Sun, just heard about it from the green man.\nAnd when he did so he didn't know that the cost of the New Sun's arrival\nwould be the death of Urth's current population." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I could be recalling wrong but I understood Sev was quite busy on those \nstreams of Time.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-24T23:37:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<4240C4E6.6040307@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but if you are using an objective system, you can fight back easily; \nscience strives for objectivity, and generally bows to who has better data \nand explanations, not who is spouting the rhetoric. What about when you \nhave subjective systems? There you are denied even that bare chance of \nmaking a rational case against the current sub-goals." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wasn't trying to imply that this somehow made objective worse than \nsubjective/relative; I tend to think the opposite is true. But both have \ntheir own characteristic flaws, and the flaw you originally mentioned \nhappened to be common to pretty much all forms of moral objectivism, not \njust to duty-based systems. And I had no other point in that regard." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not just unproblematic, but commendable. Severian _could_ have refused, and \ndoomed the Urthians to their previous doom, but he did not, he took that \ncross on himself. The situation is analogous to a doomed terminal dying \npatient (say, a 110 year old man), who somehow has multiple livers in \nperfect shape (bear with me), and if you, the doctor will take that burden \non yourself, you can slice out those livers and give them to a bunch of \nother people who are about to perish of not-having-liver-ness, thus saving \nsay a dozen lives while hastening another out the door." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The example you describe is similar to a standard thought problem brought up \nby (or against) utilitarians, and it's harsher than you describe. Let's say \nyou're a doctor with multiple patients waiting for transplants. In the ER \nyou happen to get a friendless hobo who has nothing wrong with him, he just \npassed out drunk. Now maybe his liver happens to be shot, but all his other \norgans are in good shape. As a utilitarian the commendable thing to do is to \ncarve up the hobo for spare parts for your other patients.\n\nBut even further than that, in that doctor's position, as a utilitarian, the \neven BETTER thing for you to do is to send a couple orderlies out around \ntown collecting the homeless until you get as many organs as you need. (Of \ncourse it doesn't *have* to be homeless people, but the homeless provide \noptimal utility because fewer people will be distressed by their passing and \nthey tend to lead low-quality lives anyway).\n\nNow, I understand that there are some utilitarians who would wholeheartedly \ngive the thumbs-up to this (although as far as I can tell *most* of them \nreact to this example by coming up with a rationale as to why they wouldn't \nreally do that), and you may be one of them. However if you don't see why \nthose of us who don't share your view would find this sort of thing \ndisturbing, \"ghoulish\" even, I don't know what to tell you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The difference is: Severian's plan /worked/. All the credit, all the \nblame..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the consequentialist world perhaps, but the comment you're responding to \nwas from a duty perspective, and in matters of duty/rules, justification \ndoesn't proceed by results.\n\nEven utilitarian systems, in practice, aren't entirely consequentialist; if \nyou drink two cases of beer, pack up your 4 kids in a car and go driving \ndown the road at 100 mph, even the utilitarian will not morally praise you \nbecause by some freak accident this combination of actions just happened to \nsave a bus full of nuns.\n\nThere also remains the question: by what standard are you judging Severian's \nplan \"good\" (and thus his actions \"good\", because the plan worked)? And this \nis ultimately the exact same question we started with when trying to judge \nSeverian. Appealing to his success does not advance us any steps closer to \nan answer to this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Another thing: Severian is the rightful autarch of Urth; as a \nfeudal/fascist ruler, he claims\nultimate authority over his subjects. No wonder he wouldn't worry whether \nhe should do it or not." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He is not the Autarch of Urth, he is the Autarch of the Commonwealth, a \nsingle kingdom on Urth among others. But even if he were the Autarch of all \nof Urth, why should this matter to *us* in judging his character?\n\nAs a side note with talk of fascism running rampant in the list I find \nmyself reflecting that tyranny and fascism were not aspects that I strongly \nassociated with Autarchy when I first read the books. My first impression, \neven at this point, when someone calls Severian \"the Autarch\" is to think: \nself-ruled, self-ruler. Only by extension do I reach an idea of governing \nothers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It could be that as Autarch, he has already been judged or advised so many \ntimes, by people so far above the norm in intelligence, knowledge, and \nexperience that he doesn't give a flip about what the reader may think, he \nstands with the giants, and their appraisal is what matters." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Except that he obviously does care about the reader's opinion of his \nactions, even down to his relationships with various women.\n\nIn subsequent conversation since your post it has been cited that Severian \ndoesn't appear to even recognize the consequences of what he's going to do \nuntil he gets to the trial. This is interesting, but I think that he is \neither being evasive with us on this point and pretending ignorance, or else \nhe kept himself *willfully* ignorant up to that point. Severian is perfectly \naware that natives of Urth - perhaps even *most* natives of Urth - do not \nlike what he is planning on doing, would stop him if they could, and may \neven try to kill him. How does he know this without having some clue as to \nwhy they're so dead set against his project? And doesn't it seem odd that he \nwould not ask this question, even as they did try to kill him?\n\nSeverian in this respect is a figure of - for lack of a better word - \n\"fanatical\" certainty. And this seems a certainty based more on some \nintuition or faith, some inherent value he holds, rather than a matter of \nrational deliberation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not think the dual 'heavenly-New-Sun-with-no-real-free-will' and \n'human-Severian' is much of a problem; at least it wasn't for most of\nChristinaity, and their human portion was not even a torturer but a \ntortured." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I expected someone else to answer this but it passed under the radar. To \nenvision Christ without free will *would* be a problem in Christianity, a \nbig problem. Part of the significance of his sacrifice is that Christ, alone \namong humans, never sinned, yet paid the price for all sinners. His never \nsinning itself has no significance at all if he could have sinned. And in \nanother sense, it is important that Christ was also free to put his burden \ndown.\n\nIn any event I'm not sure whether this particular point is any help with \nSeverian's case.\n\nSorry to be so contrary. My next post will be much more agreeable, I \npromise.\n\nCivet" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001601c53119$d83dcf40$663ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-25T01:05:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<008501c530a8$34258400$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Crush quoted me and wrote:\nYou forget that Typhon \"once ruled this planet, and many more.\" (SWORD,\np.-188)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Okay. But for all we know, he may be referring to Blue and Green and other\nsuch colonies founded by the Whorl. In that case, it is hardly a thriving\nempire." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're really reaching now. You know perfectly well that Typhon established\nhis Second Empire before he even came to Urth; that the _Whorl_ was built\nand stocked _after_ he came to Urth (Marble and Hammerstone were\nmanufactured on Urth, and where do you think those \"sleepers\" came from?\nRemember Duko Rigoglio, aka Roger? He recognized his former neighborhood in\nthe ruins of Nessus and said \"They forced me to board the _Whorl_ and put me\nto sleep.\" IGJ, p.-315), and that Typhon ruled neither Blue nor Green, which\nwere colonized three centuries (ship's time) after his death." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The survival of humanity does not depend on what happens on Urth, as\nI've said before. To remove any reasonable doubt, I submit the following\nquote:\n\nSeverian to Apheta: URTH, p.-135, both hb & pb\n------------------------------------------------------\n\"Is Urth really so important to you?\"\n She shook her head.\n \"Then why bother with it or me?\"\n \"Because your race is important to us. It would be far\nless laborious if we could deal with it all at once, but you\nare sown over tens of thousands of worlds, and we cannot.\"\n----------------------------------------------------" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Doesn't this quote suggest that the opposite is true? That the future of\nhumanity hinges largely on the fate of Urth? Humanity may survive if Urth\ngoes cold...heck, it most certainly will survive on the Tzadikel since the\ntravel beyond Time itself...they might survive for millenia on other\nplanets\nand on ships like the Whorl like pigmy wooly mammoths on isolated islands,\nbut there will be no significant human civilization, no Green Man, and no\nHierodules." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What part of \"you are sown over tens of thousands of worlds\" do you find\nambiguous? As for the Hierodules, see p.-137-38 in URTH. To summarize: In a\nprevious iteration of universes, uppity Man created the Hierogrammates. That\nuniverse died and the Hierogrammates were the only work of Man to survive\nits death. The Hierodules were created by the Hierogrammates to be their\nservants. My point here is that the Hierogrammates exist _outside_ of time\nand the boom/bust cycle of universes. If the Hierogrammates can survive the\ndeath of a whole universe, then they will certainly survive anything that\nhappens to a single planet.\n\nIn the current universe, where Urth's sun is dying, Typhon set out to build\na Second Empire to rival the First. The H's weren't going to let him. They\nstopped him, partly out of spite, as revenge for the wrongs done to their\nancestors during the course of their creation by Man, and partly at the\nbehest of the Increate, who had been down that road before and didn't like\nwhere it ended. The H's are archangels who have the ear of the Increate, and\nwho do his bidding. If that last statement isn't true, then Severian was a\ncolossal dupe in an epic crime and Wolfe's Urth Cycle is a farce." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The \"ice future\" was a contrived consequence of Man's uppity behavior. The\ncoming of the New Sun, and the death and destruction it entailed for Man's\nancestral home, was a symbolic sacrifice to appease a vengeful Increate.\nThis is not merely my opinion; it is what the text says:\n\nTzadkiel to Sev: URTH, p.-153\n----------------------------------------------------\n\"You are the New Sun. You will be returned\nto your Urth, and the White Fountain will go with you.\nThe death agonies of the world you know will be offered to\nthe Increate. And they will be indescribable--continents\nwill founder, as has been said. Much that is beautiful will\nperish, and with it most of your race; but your home will\nbe reborn.\"\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nThis isn't the first time I've posted this quote, but the\nsweetness-and-light variety of Christians seem to find it disturbing. I\ncan't help that; I didn't write it, but there it is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At risk of being identified for the first time in my life with some\n\"sweetness-and-light\" brigade, I have to ask for more support than this.\nThis quote does not say the Sun was wounded by Hierodules..not for Man's\nuppity behavior or anything else. The line about the \"death agonies\" of\nUrth\nbeing \"offered to the Increate\" is enigmatic but it is surely a metaphor --\nfor what, I have no idea. If the New Sun *is* some sort of\nvirgin-into-the-volcano sacrifice (an angle belied by the Apheta quote you\noffered), there is no evidence that the Increate has ASKED for that\nsacrifice or that he/she is in any way involved." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you think Tzadkiel lied? I don't. Do archangels lie? If he lied about\nthat he may have lied about everything. Do we get to choose which things to\nbelieve? Urth wasn't drowned by a metaphor. Two things are certain; the New\nSun was created by the efforts of the Hierogrammates, and old Urth was wiped\nclean by it. If the Increate, who \"so loved the world ...\", allowed that\nworld to be destroyed, then it must have been by his will; that or he was\npowerless to stop it and the H's were running the show. Pick one. Either\none. If the former then the text means just what it says; if the latter then\nthe Christian veneer of the New Sun/Conciliator falls to pieces.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000201c53167$16c8fb70$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-03-25T10:18:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on Trial", "in_reply_to": "<00c601c530f9$cf872e20$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush wrote:\nBut Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes. He's not a Stalin, \nHitler, or Ozymandias killing multitudes to remake the world \naccording to some vision in their own minds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And later:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I could be recalling wrong but I understood Sev was quite\nbusy on those streams of Time." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, this is the thing. Severian doesn't even start to travel the\nstreams of time until after he has returned to Urth from Yesod, New Sun\nin tow. His very first time-hop takes him to the day the New Sun\narrives. After that it doesn't matter how busy he is on the streams of\ntime, or what he sees, because he's already brought the New Sun.\n\nSeverian does kill multitudes without making an objective analysis of\nthe outcome. And on a scale that makes Ozymandias look like Bob Geldof." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-25T18:28:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001601c53119$d83dcf40$663ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/25/05 3:05 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nThe H's are archangels who have the ear of the Increate, and\nwho do his bidding." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you have a quote for this? You certainly know the text better than I do;\nbut my vague recollection had been that while the H's believe they are doing\nthe will of the Increate, they have no privileged access to this will.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-25T23:48:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "<4240D295.5020005@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An exchange:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Sort of half-related, someone also raised a good point to me about how in \na sense our judgments of Severian, or Urth in general, seem only semi-real \nin the first place (even for a work of fiction) because Severian has a way \nof talking as if he were half-dreaming. This strikes a chord with me; Urth \nnever seemed real as a \"place\" to me but had the sort of geography of a \ndream, or subconscious realm. In this respect I do think that perhaps a \ncomparison with WK might be in order as you say." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Allow me to draw a parallel with WK; does it not seem to you that Urth, \ndying Urth, is more than a little uncanny and bizaare? What logic\nis there to it, what substanial reality? it seems almost a dream of \nmadness, or a warped parody of what should be (everything decaying and in\nruins.) We pass from place to place with little propelling plot, in \npicaresque manner, though it feels intuitively that there is a vast hidden \nlogic\nwebs of meaning (I thinking of the ambience of \"Foucault's Pendulum\" here, \nbut less factual and explicit). Does not Old Urth seem unreal, as unreal \nas the angel in the Knight would have seemed in Muspell?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In short, YES. It has always seemed surreal to me, from the first time I \nlayed eyes on it. And the more I learned, the stranger its elements became.\n\nI have always also found it strange that some of the veterans here avoid \ndiscussing this surreality like the plague. I do not know whether to \nattribute this to the idea that it is all old hat to them, now... or whether \nthey simply weren't sure what to make of it. It becomes even more perplexing \nwhen people who I would expect to know the best seem to approach the story \nin a very literal sci-fi narrative fashion.\n\nBut riddle me this, those who know: why, when choosing his whole qabbalistic \nnaming scheme in BotNS, did Wolfe choose to ground the realm of Urth under \nthe name of \"Yesod\"? This is a level too high for any literal story. \nShouldn't it be \"Malkhut\"?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Urth in TBOTNS is lit by an old sun; its inhabitants seem unreal- we know \nthis by how many of them turn out to not be- even Agilus, a basic scammer \nis suspected of otherworldly origins- and it doesnot seem unreasonable!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, YES. Wolfe produces a state of practical paranoia when it comes to \ngenerating connections between characters. If this is accidental then it is \na mark of poor, poor craftsmanship. We have good reason to believe that this \nis not due to poor craftsmanship. On the surface such a scenario could not \nproduce an intelligible story. And yet one hazy level removed from this, is \nit not true that such connections seem to pass unnoticed?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "When a New Sun comes, and everything is brought to a higher\nreality, when we move up a cabalic tree, (like a day of judgement) is it \nunreasonable to expect some shadows of the old world to pass away?\n\nI say we see the unreality of Urth and do not condemn the slaying of \nshadows.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is precisely the shadows that reside in the *higher* levels, and the more \nmaterial bodies in the lower. Perhaps we mourn for the slaying of the \nshadows because in a way all the slayings of all the \"real people\" are just \nthe physical manifestations of that single slaying of shadows, represented \nover and over in the lower realms.\n\nBut it is the nature of such a structure to make it difficult to distinguish \nthe higher from the lower. I feel I'm being cryptic here, but I've thought \nof 5 different ways to say this as I sit here and every one of them only \nworks if you already *apprehend*, in some way, what I'm trying to say. \nPerhaps the only way to express such a thing is to write a story, in which \npeople won't be able to isolate the elements in an intelligible way but may \nstill be able to convey something that everyone intuitively understands yet \nis unable to explain..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<001001c531db$6460ee00$373ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-26T00:11:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam quoted and wrote:\non 3/25/05 3:05 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The H's are archangels who have the ear of the Increate, and\nwho do his bidding." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you have a quote for this? You certainly know the text better than I do;\nbut my vague recollection had been that while the H's believe they are\ndoing\nthe will of the Increate, they have no privileged access to this will." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As with much else in Wolfe, it is largely inferred. The quote about \"The\ndeath agonies of the world you know will be offered to the Increate\" implies\nthat the Hierogrammates have, at the least, the Increate's attention. And\nUrth, as Man's planet of origin, has a unique place in the eyes of the\nIncreate, from a Christian perspective. We know Wolfe is a Christian and\nthat the Urth Cycle was written with that perspective in mind. Unmistakable\nChristian imagery pops up throughout the Sun Cycle -- from Ctesiphon's\nCross, water into wine, the Temptation, death and resurrection, in NS, to\nSilk's vision of the Cross during his epiphany in LS. There are probably\nmore, but that's just off the top of my head.\n\nProbably the best quote I can give is the one from pages 137-138 of URTH:\n------------------------------------------------\n \"Severian, do you know the meaning of that word you used? Of\nHierogrammate?\"\n I told her that someone had once told me it designated those who\nrecorded the rescripts of the Increate.\n \"So much is correct.\"\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nMy old _Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language_, College\nEdition, 1966, defines rescript this way: \"1. an order or decree issued by a\nRoman emperor or by the Pope in answer to some difficulty or point of law\npresented to him, and having the force of law; hence, 2. any official decree\nor order. 3. a) a rewriting. b) something rewritten; copy. 4. in _law_, an\norder, as from a court to its clerk, or from an appellate court to a trial\ncourt, giving the disposition of a case.\"\n\nI gave all of the definitions because I didn't want to be accused of picking\nthe ones that suited my case, or twisting them to fit my fancy. (I could\nhave used my compact edition of the OED, but the type is a hell of a lot\nsmaller than it was twenty years ago, and it says much the same thing,\nanyway.[g]) Definitions 1, 2 and 4 each involve some sort of communication\nbetween a higher and lower power, any of which suffice to support my\nassertion that the H's receive their orders from a higher authority, and\nwhat authority is higher than an archangel but the Increate? But even #3\nrequires an author, and the above quote specifies that the Increate was the\nauthor of the rescripts, the H's merely the recorder. All in all, I don't\nsee any way around it; the Increate was calling the shots.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-26T00:31:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<20050323101618.43139.qmail@web54204.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "nastler said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Urth only seems unreal because we see it through Sev,\nand he is not well in his head. Compare with the Urth\nsections related for us in SS.\n\"Urth IS real (and I, unfortunately, am nastler).\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Comparisons with passages about Urth in BotSS can only go so far. But here's \na comparison for you:\n\nPeople who get sucked into the sort of astral travel that Silkhorn engages \nin tend to interpret what happened in that projection as...\n\nA dream." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "MESCHIA: \"Do you think you are more than a corpse? You\nare less\"\nThis line of the play, spoken by Sev, is his opinion\nof his fellow Urthers. It is what allows him to do\nwhat he does." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It indicates his attitude, which allows him to do as he does. But: do you \nthink it is right or wrong for him to hold this attitude? And if right, then \nwhy?\n\nWhat's bizarre about the stance I am taking is that by it, I don't intend to \ndiscount the actual narrative of the New Sun books, or the actions of \nSeverian. Nonetheless I feel this is a not only justified but INTENDED point \nof view, and that these opinions are not contradictory. I hope I can be \nforgiven for this lapse (though I think it is an oddity that Wolfe intended \nto produce).\n\nCivet" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2005-03-26T01:21:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001001c531db$6460ee00$373ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "between a higher and lower power, any of which suffice to support my\nassertion that the H's receive their orders from a higher authority, and\nwhat authority is higher than an archangel but the Increate? But even #3\nrequires an author, and the above quote specifies that the Increate was the\nauthor of the rescripts, the H's merely the recorder. All in all, I don't\nsee any way around it; the Increate was calling the shots. \n\n-Roy" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nThere is that passage where Severian remarks the existence of the angels \n(creatures of the rank of Tzadkiel) can be deduced by pure logic even if the \nexistence of the Increate can not. \n\nThere is in fact nothing in boTNS to verify the existence of god: He is not \nseen, only his servants are. Presumably their faces are turned to him and \nwe see only their backs, but they might be faking. It's all faith and \ninstructions transmitted by messengers. \n\n \n\n((In boTSS we do of course have a direct divine contact with man.)) " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-26T01:35:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is in fact nothing in boTNS to verify the existence of god: He is \nnot seen, only his servants are. Presumably their faces are turned to him \nand we see only their backs, but they might be faking. It's all faith and \ninstructions transmitted by messengers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is an implication that this role is only perceived to be with the \nHierogrammates/Hierodules because of the particular stage of the cycle that \nhumanity was on at the time. That is, at some other time humanity acted as \nthe servants as the Increate to uplift the H's; they are returning the \nfavor, and in turn presumably humanity will (in its improved state) act to \nimprove the H's even further." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "((In boTSS we do of course have a direct divine contact with man.))" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that this is at best a gnostic sort of divine contact. The scene in \nwhich Silkhorn feels the presence behind them... if he had turned around \nthey would have seen Wolfe's face.\n\nOf course he did not, because that is not what we do. It is not for the \ncreated to look on the face of the creator. But Wolfe in a way I think has \nto acknowledge his role as a mediating creator between God and the \ncharacters in Wolfe's novels." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f761737050326111612c8be6d@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-26T11:16:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001001c531db$6460ee00$373ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Various folks wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "my vague recollection had been that while the H's believe they are\ndoing\nthe will of the Increate, they have no privileged access to this will." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As with much else in Wolfe, it is largely inferred. The quote about \"The\ndeath agonies of the world you know will be offered to the Increate\" implies\nthat the Hierogrammates have, at the least, the Increate's attention. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps, but it doesn't imply any \"privileged access to\" the will of (oh,\njust say it) God. Certainly not to a Catholic, to whom every suffering\nis to be \"offered up\" to Jesus.\n\n(Side note, to Christians in the group: I'm finally being confirmed in the\nCatholic church this evening. Please offer a prayer.)\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is. \nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<3d03967f0503261338cac00c3@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Uwe Schuerkamp", "address": "uwe.schuerkamp at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-26T13:58:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f761737050326111612c8be6d@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:16:40 -0800, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\n(Side note, to Christians in the group: I'm finally being confirmed in the\nCatholic church this evening. Please offer a prayer.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "all the best with your \"new\" belief.\n\nuwe" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-27T11:41:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/25/05 1:37 AM, Chris at rasputin_ at hotmail.com wrote:\nIn subsequent conversation since your post it has been cited that Severian\ndoesn't appear to even recognize the consequences of what he's going to do\nuntil he gets to the trial. This is interesting, but I think that he is\neither being evasive with us on this point and pretending ignorance, or else\nhe kept himself *willfully* ignorant up to that point. Severian is perfectly\naware that natives of Urth - perhaps even *most* natives of Urth - do not\nlike what he is planning on doing, would stop him if they could, and may\neven try to kill him. How does he know this without having some clue as to\nwhy they're so dead set against his project? And doesn't it seem odd that he\nwould not ask this question, even as they did try to kill him?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My recollection of the five books is spotty, but here's what I found looking\nthrough UotNS. First Idas tries to kill Sev, but he assumes it's because\nshe's working for Abaia (51). When Purn tries to kill him, he first thinks\nit's out of rivalry for Gunnie. When Purn tells him that \"Everybody knew ...\nthat you meant to bring back the New Sun if you could, turn Urth upside down\nand kill everybody,\" Sev is \"stunned ... not just by what he said but by his\nvery evident sincerity\" (84-85). Later when Apheta tells him, immediately\nbefore the trial, that if he succeeds \"your Urth will be destroyed,\" he\nresponds \"Purn was right, then. He wanted to kill me, and I should have let\nhim.\" (148) So unless Sev is lying outright, it would seem that the idea\nthat the New Sun would mean Urth's destruction was new to him, and that he\nwas incredulous that anybody could believe it. (Though he did learn the\ntruth slightly earlier than I'd thought.)\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-28T07:55:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<00c601c530f9$cf872e20$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "on 3/24/05 11:16 PM, James Wynn at thewynns at earthlink.net wrote:\nTony Ellis wrote:\nMaster Ashe says.\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I understood \"many of your people\" to be a\nfraction of a small remnant of humanity surviving at the end of Old Sun's\nlifecycle, and I understood \"better worlds\" to mean \"better than Urth is\nat\nthe end of the Old Sun's life cycle.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Even if the Urthians who would be evacuated would be only a fraction of\nUrth's population, they'd probably be more numerous than those who survive\nthe New Sun's coming are; and hence their descendants would be more\nnumerous\nthan the descendants of Urth's survivors in the timeline Sev picks." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't know why that would be. The Cold Urth generations are surely much\nless fruitful, die earlier, and lose more in childhood than the New Urth\ngenerations or generations on planets like Blue and Green." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But as soon as they were evacuated they'd start breeding at normal rates." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Each generation \nthat is only a little more fruitful will yield exponential increases in only\na few centuries. I have no idea how many Urthlings survived the Deluge, but\nI'm guessing more than you are, I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Asked who will survive, Baldanders says \"Those on ships, possibly. Those\nwhose ships are in the air or in the void, certainly. Those who live under\nthe sea already, as I have now for fifty years.\" (300) Probably only a few\nof the first group would survive. There would be only a few of the second\ngroup. The third group is Abaia's slaves; we don't know how many there are\nof these, but I doubt it's their fate Sev is concerned with. We can also add\nthose, like Odilo, who manage to survive by clinging on to some debris, but\nagain there will probably be only a few of these. (The extent to which the\npre-deluge Urth has been forgotten after only two generations, in the Ushan\nvillage Sev comes to, is further evidence that there weren't many\nsurvivors.) \n\nNote that we're not talking about a big tidal wave: the continents *sink*\n(153, 300, 339). (I know it's scientifically implausible, but plausibility\ndoesn't seem to be a particular concern of Wolfe's in UotNS.)\n\nI can see that one could argue that the total number of humans ever existing\nwould be maximized in the New Sun future (e.g. by assuming that humanity\nwill expand to occupy all the habitable planets in the galaxy, and will\nincrease on each planet to the limits of its carrying capacity), but it's\nhardly a certainty. Personally, I wouldn't want to kill millions of people\non the chance that such an argument might be true (even assuming such a\ntransaction would be morally justified)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Green and Blue in \"The Short Sun\" are\nundoubtedly better than Master Ashe's world" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They're better than being drowned, too." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but now you are being argumentative. They can't all be evacuated or\nMaster Ashe would be studying a depopulated planet." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ash is studying a depopulated planet: in the time corresponding to the top\nlevel of his house, his house is the only thing not covered by ice. But\nyou're correct that not everyone would be evacuated: Ash says \"No, not\neveryone. Some would not go, some could not be found. No home could be found\nfor others.\" (CotA, ch. 17, p. 131, Timescape edition). But the impression I\nget from Ash's words is that most were evacuated. (Note that carrying\ncapacity is not a problem; and why should it be? If the ship can travel\nbackwards and forwards in time, then the number of trips it can make is\nlimited only by the need to avoid colliding with itself.) In any case, more\nwould be evacuated than survived the coming of the New Sun.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-28T07:56:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001001c531db$6460ee00$373ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/26/05 2:11 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nAdam quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "on 3/25/05 3:05 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The H's are archangels who have the ear of the Increate, and\nwho do his bidding." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Do you have a quote for this? You certainly know the text better than I do;\nbut my vague recollection had been that while the H's believe they are\ndoing\nthe will of the Increate, they have no privileged access to this will." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As with much else in Wolfe, it is largely inferred. The quote about \"The\ndeath agonies of the world you know will be offered to the Increate\" implies\nthat the Hierogrammates have, at the least, the Increate's attention. And\nUrth, as Man's planet of origin, has a unique place in the eyes of the\nIncreate, from a Christian perspective." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "True; but, if the universe of the Sun cycle is our universe, then the\nIncarnation has already taken place; whereas if it's a previous universe, as\nWolfe once said in an interview, then it won't take place on Sev's Urth at\nall. Either way, there seems no particular reason for the Increate to\nconcern himself with the Urth of Sev's day." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Probably the best quote I can give is the one from pages 137-138 of URTH:\n------------------------------------------------\n\"Severian, do you know the meaning of that word you used? Of\nHierogrammate?\"\nI told her that someone had once told me it designated those who\nrecorded the rescripts of the Increate.\n\"So much is correct.\"\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nMy old _Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language_, College\nEdition, 1966, defines rescript this way: \"1. an order or decree issued by a\nRoman emperor or by the Pope in answer to some difficulty or point of law\npresented to him, and having the force of law; hence, 2. any official decree\nor order. 3. a) a rewriting. b) something rewritten; copy. 4. in _law_, an\norder, as from a court to its clerk, or from an appellate court to a trial\ncourt, giving the disposition of a case.\"\n\nI gave all of the definitions because I didn't want to be accused of picking\nthe ones that suited my case, or twisting them to fit my fancy. (I could\nhave used my compact edition of the OED, but the type is a hell of a lot\nsmaller than it was twenty years ago, and it says much the same thing,\nanyway.[g]) Definitions 1, 2 and 4 each involve some sort of communication\nbetween a higher and lower power, any of which suffice to support my\nassertion that the H's receive their orders from a higher authority, and\nwhat authority is higher than an archangel but the Increate? But even #3\nrequires an author, and the above quote specifies that the Increate was the\nauthor of the rescripts, the H's merely the recorder. All in all, I don't\nsee any way around it; the Increate was calling the shots." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is an important quote, but it doesn't seem to me to be as\nstraightforward as you imply. It could just as easily mean that the\nHierogrammates are keepers of sacred writings, rather than that they receive\na continuous stream of orders from the Increate. If the latter were the\ncase, one would expect to see the Hierogrammates described as carrying out\nthe orders, rather than just recording them.\n\nI'm also dubious about your identification of the Hierogrammates with\narchangels. For one thing, they were created by the men of the previous\nuniverse. For another, they can die, or at least their children can\n(Tzadkiel's son).\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-28T07:56:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/26/05 1:48 AM, Chris at rasputin_ at hotmail.com wrote:\nIn short, YES. It has always seemed surreal to me, from the first time I\nlayed eyes on it. And the more I learned, the stranger its elements became.\n\nI have always also found it strange that some of the veterans here avoid\ndiscussing this surreality like the plague. I do not know whether to\nattribute this to the idea that it is all old hat to them, now... or whether\nthey simply weren't sure what to make of it. It becomes even more perplexing\nwhen people who I would expect to know the best seem to approach the story\nin a very literal sci-fi narrative fashion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I never found Urth as depicted in BotNS to be particularly surreal, or\nunreal. Picaresque, yes, but not surreal. UotNS, though, I did find\ndisjointed and dreamlike to the point of incoherence, and reviewing UotNS\nonly confirms this impression.\n\nOn the other hand, it seems clear to me that Wolfe does intend us to judge\nthe morality of Sev's actions in UotNS (whether well or ill). And to do so\nwe have to be able to extrapolate the likely consequences of these actions,\nwhich means that the cosmos of UotNS must be rule-bound to some extent; it\ncan't just be a dream (at least in Wolfe's intentions)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But riddle me this, those who know: why, when choosing his whole qabbalistic\nnaming scheme in BotNS, did Wolfe choose to ground the realm of Urth under\nthe name of \"Yesod\"? This is a level too high for any literal story.\nShouldn't it be \"Malkhut\"?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, Urth's universe is Briah; Yesod is the Hierogrammates' universe.\nBut this makes things more puzzling, since \"Briah would appear to be a\ndifferent spelling of Beri'ah\" (Andre-Driussi, Lexicon Urthus, p. 270),\nwhich is above Yesod.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-28T10:27:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right, that was a grievous error on my part.\n\nThe use of \"Briah\" is confusing no matter which way you look at it. \"Briah\" \nis one of a few fairly common spellings for the word indicated in Lexicon \nUrthus, although the entry there is a little misleading. What \"Briah\" \nactually means, or stands for, changes depending on what you're talking \nabout. This could be because the qabbalistic traditions are fragmented, or \njust because of a general concept shift (in other words, the uses could be \nequivalent). In either event \"Briah\" isn't a sefirot, as Yesod is; the two \nare categorically different in a way. In addition, while it's correct that \nthe whole of the tree of life can be divided into the 4 realms as \nAndre-Driussi shows, it's also true that *each individual sefirot* can \nequally be divided into the four realms; you might say that each sphere has \nits own path of energy down from the divine. On this picture of things it is \nindeed confusing, because the name you would expect for the physical realm \nis \"Assiah\"; \"Briah\" is a higher \"archangelic\" realm.\n\nThis can make a certain amount of sense if you choose to see Briah as a \nhigher realm, because in Briah there is an archangel of mercy named Tzadkiel \nwho is part of a matched pair with the archangel of \"severity\", Sammael.\n\nNow for the qualification: Nutria has shared on the list that Wolfe says \nthat while the names were \"plucked\" from the qabbalah (indicating that there \nprobably is at least something *appropriate* about the names), he didn't \nintend a \"larger spin\" or that these terms would be the key to interpreting \nthe book. So there are limits to how far this can be taken. I do think that \nthe qabbalistic names that he chose to pluck were chosen because of their \nappropriateness to what they were naming; if this is the case then a \nmaterialistic/literalist interpretation would make \"Malkhut\" the obvious \nchoice for Urth's universe, with \"Assiah\" as a close second.\n\nThanks for reminding me of all this.\nRegards,\nCivet" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, Urth's universe is Briah; Yesod is the Hierogrammates' universe.\nBut this makes things more puzzling, since \"Briah would appear to be a\ndifferent spelling of Beri'ah\" (Andre-Driussi, Lexicon Urthus, p. 270),\nwhich is above Yesod.\n\n--Adam\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<002301c53420$a2397700$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-28T21:32:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam wrote:\nTrue; but, if the universe of the Sun cycle is our universe, then the\nIncarnation has already taken place; whereas if it's a previous universe,\nas\nWolfe once said in an interview, then it won't take place on Sev's Urth at\nall. Either way, there seems no particular reason for the Increate to\nconcern himself with the Urth of Sev's day." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I've said earlier, the destruction of Urth was largely a symbolic\npunishment; symbolic because Urth was man's ancestral birthplace, and\nmankind was dispersed too far and wide in the galaxy (galaxies?) for the\nHierogrammates to overcome entropy (135) and hit mankind all at once. If the\nIncarnation took place in the Sun cycle universe, and that universe was also\nours, then the site of that Incarnation seems to me quite sufficient reason\nfor the Increate to concern himself with Urth. All the Christian echoes I\nnoted before indicate that Urth was that site, otherwise how did they get\nthere from a previously collapsed universe?\n\nAlso, if Urth is Earth, as I think it _must_ me, then the Increate walked\nthe planet with various Old Testament luminaries -- to say nothing of the\nlife and death of Jesus. There can be no more hallowed ground in any\nuniverse.\n\nIf the Sun cycle _did not_ take place in _our_ universe, then the\nIncarnation presents a religious problem. It is central to the Christian\nfaith that the Incarnation was a _unique_ historical event. If that is so,\nand Jesus didn't suffer on Urth, then the people of Urth were doubly damned.\nNot only were they paying a price for the 'sins' of the Hieros of a prior\nuniverse -- something they had no control over, but they had no chance for\n'salvation', for, as Christians maintain, only by way of Jesus might they be\nredeemed. Big problem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is an important quote, but it doesn't seem to me to be as\nstraightforward as you imply. It could just as easily mean that the\nHierogrammates are keepers of sacred writings, rather than that they\nreceive\na continuous stream of orders from the Increate. If the latter were the\ncase, one would expect to see the Hierogrammates described as carrying out\nthe orders, rather than just recording them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought that in putting the Epitome of Urth on trial they _were_ carrying\nout the orders of the Increate.\n\nAt one point Sev noted the \"spangled sky of Yesod\", and asked Apheta about\nother worlds. She said \"When we require them, the Hierogrammates will build\nmore -- worlds as fair as this, or more fair. Suns for them too, should we\nrequire more suns.\" (p-142) It's hard for me to imagine the Creator\npermitting such godlike feats without express leave to do so. From _Genesis_\nonward, the Increate seems to take grave exception to such things." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm also dubious about your identification of the Hierogrammates with\narchangels. For one thing, they were created by the men of the previous\nuniverse. For another, they can die, or at least their children can\n(Tzadkiel's son)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought that the angelic nature of the Hierogrammates had been hashed out\nand largely agreed upon by this list years ago. Alga, for one, iirc,\nheld them to be such. Since you appealed to _Lexicon Urthus_, so will I. \"In\nthe Kabbalistic book _The Zohar_, Tzadkiel is fourth of the ten archangels\nof the Briatic world.\" (247)\n\nAnd if archangels are invulnerable by nature, why was Michael wearing armor?\n(KNIGHT, 274)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<200503291117.j2TBHpBc077353@mailserver3.hushmail.com>", "from": { "name": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com", "address": "thalassocrat at nym.hush.com" }, "date": "2005-03-29T03:17:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<002301c53420$a2397700$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy says inter alia:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As I've said earlier, the destruction of Urth was largely a \nsymbolic\npunishment; symbolic because Urth was man's ancestral birthplace, \nand\nmankind was dispersed too far and wide in the galaxy (galaxies?) \nfor the\nHierogrammates to overcome entropy (135) and hit mankind all at \nonce. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I feel that \"symbolic\" and \"punishment\" must both be wrong, \nsomehow. \n\nIf it were a punishment and only symbolic, why then would \nTzadkiel's son fight and die in the Trial Battle? Why would that \nbattle take place at all? Why the whole rigmarole - why not just \nzap a White Fountain into the heart of the Sun?\n\nSimilarly, when Alpheta tells Sev that Urth is not impportant, I \nthink she is lying, as she lied about humanity not being important. \n\nIt must be that Ushas is a necessary part of the Plan. And it must, \n\nsomehow, be necessary for the victim to consent in the sacrfice, by \n\nthe assent of Sev as Epitome. \n\nI don't claim to know from the text why this should be the case, \nbut if it isn't, I don't think the narrative makes any sense. \n\n(Personally, I find the idea of one person exemplifying the whole, \nand the idea of a Greater End requiring the death of multitudes, to \n\nbe quite repellant. That's one reason why I prefer to think of \nBOTNS as a complete whole; I don't think it's necessarily the case \nthat Wolfe have had the UOTNS scheme of things in mind when he \nwrote it. Even the description of the end of Urth in Talos' play, \nwith continents foundering etc, could have been simply a lie.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And if archangels are invulnerable by nature, why was Michael \nwearing armor?\n(KNIGHT, 274)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "FWIW, you also have the story Gabriel and the sparrow, in BOTNS, \nwhere Gabriel says something like, \"If I had known that we might \ndie, I would not have been at all times so brave.\" " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2005-03-29T19:52:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Much discussion here about appropriateness of higher authorities flooding\nthe whole world for 40 days and killing everyone save a small band of\nsurvivors. I suspect this has been previously discussed in other\nforums ;),\n\nThe only difference is that Severian is the instrument causing the\nsuffering, rather than the sacrifice himself. As with Abraham (as\ndiscussed upthread), he has to believe things will turn out all right in\nthe long term, even though he cannot comprehend the necessity of the\nordained methods.\n\nDavid Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<3d03967f050330033422fb8c08@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Uwe Schuerkamp", "address": "uwe.schuerkamp at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-30T03:35:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<002301c53420$a2397700$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:31:54 -0600, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nthe planet with various Old Testament luminaries -- to say nothing of the\nlife and death of Jesus. There can be no more hallowed ground in any\nuniverse." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now now, aren't you reading too much into Wolfe's christian\nbackground? Funny thing is that when I found out he is a converted\ncatholic (he mentioned it in some interview I read on the web), this\nfact alone really put me off his books for a while, and I was reading\ntoo much into certain scenes he describes, too (like the one where\nMaytera's daughter and Silk/Horn \"re-invent\" the communion).\n\nYour definition of \"hallowed ground\" might not fit Wolfe's. \n\nAll the best & bye for now, \n\nuwe" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-30T20:28:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<002301c53420$a2397700$8c3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/28/05 11:31 PM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nIf the Sun cycle _did not_ take place in _our_ universe, then the\nIncarnation presents a religious problem. It is central to the Christian\nfaith that the Incarnation was a _unique_ historical event. If that is so,\nand Jesus didn't suffer on Urth, then the people of Urth were doubly damned.\nNot only were they paying a price for the 'sins' of the Hieros of a prior\nuniverse -- something they had no control over, but they had no chance for\n'salvation', for, as Christians maintain, only by way of Jesus might they be\nredeemed. Big problem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But no bigger a problem than those in the real world who died before Jesus's\nbirth. For that matter, the inhabitants of Urth are virtually all damned\nanyway. There was a discussion about whether Christianity existed in Sev's\nday a long time ago on the list, but I don't recall what conclusion was\nreached, if any; but if there are any Christians still around, they're\nsurely a very small minority.\n\nI've never really understood how Christian readers of Wolfe can take the\nChristian imagery surrounding the New Sun at face value, ignoring the fact\nthat unlike Jesus, it brings not salvation but indiscriminate death and\ndamnation.\n\n(Incidentally, I don't like the idea that the Sun cycle takes place in a\nprevious universe either -- I'd like to believe that it was something Wolfe\ndreamed up after the fact, so I could reject it with a clear conscience --\nbut since Wolfe did say it, I feel I have to take it into account.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This is an important quote, but it doesn't seem to me to be as\nstraightforward as you imply. It could just as easily mean that the\nHierogrammates are keepers of sacred writings, rather than that they\nreceive\na continuous stream of orders from the Increate. If the latter were the\ncase, one would expect to see the Hierogrammates described as carrying out\nthe orders, rather than just recording them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I thought that in putting the Epitome of Urth on trial they _were_ carrying\nout the orders of the Increate." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My point was that the definition Sev (and you) quoted, and Apheta endorsed,\nrefers to them only as recording \"rescripts,\" rather than carrying them out." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At one point Sev noted the \"spangled sky of Yesod\", and asked Apheta about\nother worlds. She said \"When we require them, the Hierogrammates will build\nmore -- worlds as fair as this, or more fair. Suns for them too, should we\nrequire more suns.\" (p-142) It's hard for me to imagine the Creator\npermitting such godlike feats without express leave to do so. From _Genesis_\nonward, the Increate seems to take grave exception to such things." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what to say about this argument; it doesn't seem convincing at\nall to me. Though Wolfe is a conservative Catholic, I doubt he believes that\nthe Babel story is literally true. And as Andy Robertson pointed out,\nthere's no direct evidence in BotNS or UotNS of the Increate directly\nintervening in the created world in any way, if I'm not mistaken." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm also dubious about your identification of the Hierogrammates with\narchangels. For one thing, they were created by the men of the previous\nuniverse. For another, they can die, or at least their children can\n(Tzadkiel's son)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I thought that the angelic nature of the Hierogrammates had been hashed out\nand largely agreed upon by this list years ago. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You may be right; I don't remember. I'm not doubting that the Hierogrammates\nare closely associated by Wolfe with angels, only that they literally are\narchangels. Not only were they created by the Hieros, but they still revere\nthe Hieros (138); to me this tells against their being archangels, whom one\nwould expect to revere only God.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c535c9$19793680$a13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-31T00:10:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Uwe Schuerkamp quoted me and wrote:\nthe planet with various Old Testament luminaries -- to say nothing of the\nlife and death of Jesus. There can be no more hallowed ground in any\nuniverse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now now, aren't you reading too much into Wolfe's christian\nbackground? Funny thing is that when I found out he is a converted\ncatholic (he mentioned it in some interview I read on the web), this\nfact alone really put me off his books for a while, and I was reading\ntoo much into certain scenes he describes, too (like the one where\nMaytera's daughter and Silk/Horn \"re-invent\" the communion).\n\nYour definition of \"hallowed ground\" might not fit Wolfe's." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps not; but my point in the above excerpt was to maintain that, from\none end of the Judeo-Christian spectrum to the other, from the Old Testament\nto the New, the world we live on is necessarily the most dear piece of real\nestate in Creation to the Increate. I don't see how either Jew or Christian\ncould argue with that.\n\nIn my recent postings I have tried, by my phrasing and use of quotes, to\npresent common Christian beliefs, some of which are probably, even\nnecessarily held by Wolfe, without appearing to endorse them. I don't. I am\nnot a Christian, but that doesn't make me blind to Wolfe's religious\nbackground or use of Christian themes and imagery. Particularly in his short\nstories, Wolfe is decidedly Christian. Just two examples: read \"No Planets\nStrike\" and tell me it isn't Christian, or \"Queen\", which is nothing but.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001701c535c9$3721fc80$a13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-31T00:11:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c535c9$19793680$a13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam wrote:\nBut no bigger a problem than those in the real world who died before\nJesus's\nbirth. For that matter, the inhabitants of Urth are virtually all damned\nanyway. There was a discussion about whether Christianity existed in Sev's\nday a long time ago on the list, but I don't recall what conclusion was\nreached, if any; but if there are any Christians still around, they're\nsurely a very small minority." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've never really understood how Christian readers of Wolfe can take the\nChristian imagery surrounding the New Sun at face value, ignoring the fact\nthat unlike Jesus, it brings not salvation but indiscriminate death and\ndamnation.\n\n(Incidentally, I don't like the idea that the Sun cycle takes place in a\nprevious universe either -- I'd like to believe that it was something Wolfe\ndreamed up after the fact, so I could reject it with a clear conscience --\nbut since Wolfe did say it, I feel I have to take it into account.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe Wolfe placed the Sun cycle in a previous universe in an attempt to\ndodge the problem presented by the Incarnation that I mentioned. But both\nNewton and Einstein would frown on uncaused effects -- those Christian\nsymbols." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "At one point Sev noted the \"spangled sky of Yesod\", and asked Apheta\nabout\nother worlds. She said \"When we require them, the Hierogrammates will\nbuild\nmore -- worlds as fair as this, or more fair. Suns for them too, should\nwe\nrequire more suns.\" (p-142) It's hard for me to imagine the Creator\npermitting such godlike feats without express leave to do so. From\n_Genesis_\nonward, the Increate seems to take grave exception to such things." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure what to say about this argument; it doesn't seem convincing at\nall to me. Though Wolfe is a conservative Catholic, I doubt he believes\nthat\nthe Babel story is literally true. And as Andy Robertson pointed out,\nthere's no direct evidence in BotNS or UotNS of the Increate directly\nintervening in the created world in any way, if I'm not mistaken." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps not in those five books; I'd have to think about it. Water into\nwine? The Cathedral of the Pelerines rising into the night sky? Sev called\nit a \"miracle\" when he and Dorcas saw it rise. (SHADOW, 243) And the lady\nvendor in Saltus said of her scientific-minded grandson-in-law's\nexplanation, \"He can't see the Hand in nature.\" (CLAW, ch. III)\n\nBut in the larger universe of the Sun cycle we have Silk's epiphany, and how\ndo we account for his coming back to life after he was buried in the rubble,\nbut by the intervention of the Outsider?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8C70428BA32212E-804-164FA@mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com>", "from": { "name": "stoneox17 at aol.com", "address": "stoneox17 at aol.com" }, "date": "2005-03-31T08:54:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001701c535c9$3721fc80$a13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Roy C. Lackey writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " Adam wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But no bigger a problem than those in the real world who died before\nJesus's\nbirth. For that matter, the inhabitants of Urth are virtually all \ndamned\nanyway. There was a discussion about whether Christianity existed in \nSev's\nday a long time ago on the list, but I don't recall what conclusion \nwas\nreached, if any; but if there are any Christians still around, \nthey're\nsurely a very small minority." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Agreed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Isn't there some dispute about what happened to those who died before \nJesus\nwas born? Jesus' own words from the Bible:\n\n\"Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when \nthe dead\nshall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live\" \n(John 5:25).\n\nDoing a little searching on the web, it seems \"dead\" in this passage is \noften\ninterpreted as \"dead of spirit\" and not \"dead in the grave,\" but I \ndon't know\nwhat Wolfe's take on this would be. Until a few months ago, I would \nhave said\nthat Peace showed Wolfe thought the dead could still be saved, but \nsince I\nrecently saw an interview where he explicitly denied having intended \nWeer to\nbe in Purgatory when he wrote it (although he didn't actually disagree \nwith\nthis interpretation), I'm now not sure where he stands." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I've never really understood how Christian readers of Wolfe can take \nthe\nChristian imagery surrounding the New Sun at face value, ignoring \nthe fact\nthat unlike Jesus, it brings not salvation but indiscriminate death \nand\ndamnation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(Incidentally, I don't like the idea that the Sun cycle takes place \nin a\nprevious universe either -- I'd like to believe that it was \nsomething Wolfe\ndreamed up after the fact, so I could reject it with a clear \nconscience --\nbut since Wolfe did say it, I feel I have to take it into account.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe Wolfe placed the Sun cycle in a previous universe in an attempt \nto\ndodge the problem presented by the Incarnation that I mentioned. But \nboth\nNewton and Einstein would frown on uncaused effects -- those Christian\nsymbols." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Stone Ox" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424C3134.8020607@pressroom.com>", "from": { "name": "David Kirby", "address": "dbkirby at pressroom.com" }, "date": "2005-03-31T09:23:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Previous universe, was Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Adam Stephanides wrote:\n(Incidentally, I don't like the idea that the Sun cycle takes place in a\nprevious universe either -- I'd like to believe that it was something Wolfe\ndreamed up after the fact, so I could reject it with a clear conscience --\nbut since Wolfe did say it, I feel I have to take it into account.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've never understood the fascination with the \"previous universe\" \ntheory, no matter what Wolfe said after writing the books. Surely the \ntext of the books trumps post-book statements, and we're all familiar \nwith \"G.W.\"'s appendix, \"A Note on the Translation,\" at the end of SHADOW:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To those who have preceded me in the study of the post-\nhistoric world, and particularly to those collectors --\ntoo numerous to name here -- who have permitted me to\nexamine artifacts surviving so many centuries of futurity,\nand most especially to those who have allowed me to visit\nand photograph the era's few extant buildings, I am\ngrateful." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is no question that the Urth Cycle, \"originally composed in a \ntongue that has not yet achieved existence,\" chronicles the future.\n\n -- David" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "==============================================================\n\"It is possible I already had some presentiment of my future.\"\n== Gene Wolfe, Shadow of the Torturer\n David B. Kirby, dbkirby at pressroom.com\n==============================================================" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004201c53621$7abca050$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-31T10:43:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c535c9$19793680$a13ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message ----- \nFrom: \"Roy C. Lackey\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "my point in the above excerpt was to maintain that, from\none end of the Judeo-Christian spectrum to the other, from the Old \nTestament\nto the New, the world we live on is necessarily the most dear piece of real\nestate in Creation to the Increate. I don't see how either Jew or Christian\ncould argue with that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"And if there's life on other planets\n Then I'm sure that He must know,\nAnd He's been there once already\n And has died to save their souls\"\n\n-- Larry Norman (\"He's An Unidentified Flying Object\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maybe Wolfe placed the Sun cycle in a previous universe in an attempt to\ndodge the problem presented by the Incarnation that I mentioned. But both\nNewton and Einstein would frown on uncaused effects -- those Christian\nsymbols." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have understood Wolfe to be saying consistently and through multiple \nnovels that that imagery is universal. That Christ did what he did because \nhe was the Christ, not because circumstances shaped his history. That Christ \nbeing who he is, all creation and all saviors in myth and history tend to \nlook like him.\n\nAnd I don't see any more point in speculating on the eternal fate of the \nUrthlings than to question the eternal fate of Frodo. I could say, \"well \nsince these Urthers were before Adam, why they must have had no eternal \nsouls\" or \"being in a different Universe, the current concepts of Heaven and \nHell are not relevant\". But what's the point? Those are hardly the only way \nto bring the Sun cycle into the Christian universe. But I don't think Wolfe \nintends any such thing. He wrote a new mythology here, not speculative \nfiction.\n\nPersonally, I've come to like the idea of a \"futuristic novel\" set in a vast \ndistant future that occurs in the staggeringly distant \"past\" (if that's the \nproper word for something that occurs beyond multiple iterations of the \ncollapse and rebirth of Time). Its just the sort of twisting Wolfe does all \nthe time with his stories and characters. Maybe he didn't think of it until \nlater but I don't find it especially undermined in the text (even the quote \nDavid Kirby mentioned since the Bang-Gnab theory Wolfe is playing with was \nsimilar to the parallel universe concept of String theory). I don't see it \nas a plot hole at all.\n\nStone Ox asks:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Isn't there some dispute about what happened to those who died before\nJesus was born?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's a tradition (touched on in the Apostolic Creed) that Jesus went to \nHell to free those like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah who were held because no \npermanent sacrifice had yet been offered.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705033111361f1fc951@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-31T11:37:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004201c53621$7abca050$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Crush wrote..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There's a tradition (touched on in the Apostolic Creed) that Jesus went \nto Hell to free those like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah who were held \nbecause no permanent sacrifice had yet been offered." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's a bit more than \"a tradition.\" It's based pretty solidly on this\nbit of Scripture (from 1 Peter 3; it bridges from vv18b through 20a):\n\n He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, \n through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in \n prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently \n in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is. \nhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000c01c53631$6c1a7da0$283dc6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-03-31T12:37:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Previous universe, was Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<424C3134.8020607@pressroom.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Kirby quoted and wrote:\nAdam Stephanides wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(Incidentally, I don't like the idea that the Sun cycle takes place in a\nprevious universe either -- I'd like to believe that it was something\nWolfe\ndreamed up after the fact, so I could reject it with a clear\nconscience --\nbut since Wolfe did say it, I feel I have to take it into account.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've never understood the fascination with the \"previous universe\"\ntheory, no matter what Wolfe said after writing the books. Surely the\ntext of the books trumps post-book statements, and we're all familiar\nwith \"G.W.\"'s appendix, \"A Note on the Translation,\" at the end of SHADOW:\n\n > To those who have preceded me in the study of the post-\n > historic world, and particularly to those collectors --\n > too numerous to name here -- who have permitted me to\n > examine artifacts surviving so many centuries of futurity,\n > and most especially to those who have allowed me to visit\n > and photograph the era's few extant buildings, I am\n > grateful.\n\nThere is no question that the Urth Cycle, \"originally composed in a\ntongue that has not yet achieved existence,\" chronicles the future." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's not that clear cut. In URTH Sev says that \"in a previous manvantara\"\nthe Hieros shaped the Hierogrammates. (137) But in the chapter \"The Key to\nthe Universe\" in CITADEL (too much to quote here; the last few pages), he\nsays that the Hierogrammates exist in Yesod, outside of Time and the cycle\nof expanding and collapsing universes. He also says, in effect, that with\neach succeeding cycle an evolution takes place so that \"all things advance\nby some minute step\". That logically implies -- no, compels -- the\nadvancement to follow whatever went before.\n\nBut then, Sev also says: \"I was not told what became of the Humanity of that\ncycle.\" and \"From that vantage point [Yesod] they [the Hierogrammates] look\nboth forward and back, and in so looking they have discovered us. Perhaps we\nare no more than a race like that who shaped them. Perhaps it was we who\nshaped them - or our sons - or our fathers. Malrubius said he did not know,\nand I believe he told the truth. However it may be, they shape us now as\nthey themselves were shaped; it is at once their repayment and their\nrevenge.\" (242) This implies that the Hieros could have come from a past,\npresent, or future universe -- or so I read it. Ditto for the Urth cycle.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424C82F2.9040609@pressroom.com>", "from": { "name": "David Kirby", "address": "dbkirby at pressroom.com" }, "date": "2005-03-31T15:11:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004201c53621$7abca050$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nPersonally, I've come to like the idea of a \"futuristic novel\" set in a \nvast distant future that occurs in the staggeringly distant \"past\" (if \nthat's the proper word for something that occurs beyond multiple \niterations of the collapse and rebirth of Time). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I like the idea, too. There are, uh, cycles within the Cycle,\nand this idea undergirds the vastness of that proposition." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Its just the sort of \ntwisting Wolfe does all the time with his stories and characters. Maybe \nhe didn't think of it until later but I don't find it especially \nundermined in the text (even the quote David Kirby mentioned since the \nBang-Gnab theory Wolfe is playing with was similar to the parallel \nuniverse concept of String theory). I don't see it as a plot hole at all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " From what I've read on this list and its now-deceased \"sister\" list, \nit's also like Wolfe to say things that undermine conclusions that are \nreasonably reached from basic readings of his texts. I suspect he does \nthis on purpose, to keep us digging, but that may be giving him too much \ncredit; he certainly enjoys readers' reactions to puzzles and \"Easter \neggs\" he places in the texts. Even if he does think everything is \ncrystal clear.\n\nAnd despite what I recall being the ascendency of the Bang-Gnab theory \nin the early '80s, when NEW SUN was first published, doesn't current \nthinking have it that the universe won't \"Gnab\" on us, won't continually \nexpand, but will reach a state of (very desolate) steadiness? That's the \nassumption of Brian Greene's 2004 book, THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS; it is \nlikely based on 2003 ideas and data, but I don't recall seeing anything \nmore recent.\n\nSo maybe Wolfe *thought* he was correct when he talked about (or \n\"translated\") the Bang-Gnab theory, but our (*cough,* *cough*) *vastly* \nsuperior knowledge of the cosmos renders that assumption incorrect.\n\n(I'm sure you're aware, by the way, that the parallel universe concept \nof \"hard\" physics dates to the 1950s, quite a while before string theory \n came along in any form.)\n\n -- David" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "==============================================================\n\"It is possible I already had some presentiment of my future.\"\n== Gene Wolfe, Shadow of the Torturer\n David B. Kirby, dbkirby at pressroom.com\n==============================================================" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424C9A50.5030809@pressroom.com>", "from": { "name": "David Kirby", "address": "dbkirby at pressroom.com" }, "date": "2005-03-31T16:51:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Previous universe, was Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c53631$6c1a7da0$283dc6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nDavid Kirby quoted and wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is no question that the Urth Cycle, \"originally composed in a\ntongue that has not yet achieved existence,\" chronicles the future." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's not that clear cut." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course not! This is Wolfe we're dealing with." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In URTH Sev says that \"in a previous manvantara\"\nthe Hieros shaped the Hierogrammates. (137) But in the chapter \"The Key to\nthe Universe\" in CITADEL (too much to quote here; the last few pages), he\nsays that the Hierogrammates exist in Yesod, outside of Time and the cycle\nof expanding and collapsing universes. He also says, in effect, that with\neach succeeding cycle an evolution takes place so that \"all things advance\nby some minute step\". That logically implies -- no, compels -- the\nadvancement to follow whatever went before." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'll check out CITADEL. Your explanation clearly establishes the\nexpanding and collapsing universes, but I don't see where it shows that\nSev's adventures couldn't be taking place in the future of *our*\n\"manvantara,\" as \"G.W.\"'s note states in the portion of my original post\nI deleted above. (Damn. \"Manvantara\" defeated my RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED\nDICTIONARY, 2d edition, my NEW LEXICON WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, and\ndictionary.com. M. Andre-Driussi, in LEXICON URTHUS, failed me as well.\nSo what's the word *really* mean?)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But then, Sev also says: \"I was not told what became of the Humanity of that\ncycle.\" and \"From that vantage point [Yesod] they [the Hierogrammates] look\nboth forward and back, and in so looking they have discovered us. Perhaps we\nare no more than a race like that who shaped them. Perhaps it was we who\nshaped them - or our sons - or our fathers. Malrubius said he did not know,\nand I believe he told the truth. However it may be, they shape us now as\nthey themselves were shaped; it is at once their repayment and their\nrevenge.\" (242) This implies that the Hieros could have come from a past,\npresent, or future universe -- or so I read it. Ditto for the Urth cycle." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I remember that latter quote, and I've always read it and similar\nstatements to refer to a \"look both forward and back\" within an existing\nuniverse. (Your \". . . that cycle\" quote pretty clearly kills that idea,\nassuming that Sev understands what he is told, that what he's told is\ncorrect, and that \"G.W.\" translated Sev correctly. Sev isn't exactly\nwell versed in 1980s or 2000s cosmology. [2000th? First time I've used\nthat formation!])\n\nThis is going to get a bit too metaphysical for me, but . . . .\n\nThere clearly are, within the Cycle, parallel universes and jumpings\nbetween parallel universes. I read these parallel universes as existing\nsimultaneously (or as existing as close to simultaneously as makes no\ndifference, because an epoch might as well be a second when we're\ndealing with the existence of a universe). Think DC Comics' (pre-1985)\nEarth-1, Earth-2, and Earth-X, -Y, and -Z, if you're familiar with the\nconcept. I don't see a requirement that the parallel universes exist\nsuccessively outside a given \"metaverse\" or \"Bang-Gnab cycle,\" to bring\nup a term James Wynn and I used in messages recently posted under\nanother heading.\n\nThe time in which our universe has existed and will exist is huge! Our\nsun is (what?) a 2nd or 4th generation sun. How many generations of\n\"sun\" exist before the (current) universe dies? Even without time travel\n(but that it exists is certainly clear by URTH), why assume the\nexistence of \"pre-Bang\" universes?\n\nI suspect that replies to this message will depend upon beliefs in an\n\"ultra-universe\" god. Perhaps we'd best not get into that.\n\nThanks!\n\n -- David" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "==============================================================\n\"It is possible I already had some presentiment of my future.\"\n== Gene Wolfe, Shadow of the Torturer\n David B. Kirby, dbkirby at pressroom.com\n==============================================================" } ] }, { "message_id": "<001301c53692$4a6e60c0$4a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2005-04-01T00:10:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Previous universe, was Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<424C9A50.5030809@pressroom.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Kirby wrote:\nI'll check out CITADEL. Your explanation clearly establishes the\nexpanding and collapsing universes, but I don't see where it shows that\nSev's adventures couldn't be taking place in the future of *our*\n\"manvantara,\" as \"G.W.\"'s note states in the portion of my original post\nI deleted above." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're right. I realized that after I posted. I guess I have a problem with\nthe basic concept of things existing before they are even created; but\nthat's just me, I suppose. Still, I can't get past that \"all things advance\nby some minute step\" part in the evolution of universes. It ain't logical." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Damn. \"Manvantara\" defeated my RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED\nDICTIONARY, 2d edition, my NEW LEXICON WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, and\ndictionary.com. M. Andre-Driussi, in LEXICON URTHUS, failed me as well.\nSo what's the word *really* mean?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Have you ever looked for something -- say in a drawer -- where you know it's\nsupposed to be, but it just isn't there? So you look for it everywhere else,\nto no avail. Then you look in that drawer again and -- presto! -- there it\nis. No? Well, I bet if you look in LU again it will be there this time.\nThat, or I'm no magician. \n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050401140532.t79tsbgaqygwo8ss@superman.everybody.org>", "from": { "name": "Ephrem Christopher Walborn", "address": "ephrem at tuirgin.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T11:10:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Previous universe, was Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001301c53692$4a6e60c0$4a3ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Roy C. Lackey\" wrote on Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:10:31\n-0600:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Kirby wrote:\n(Damn. \"Manvantara\" defeated my RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED\nDICTIONARY, 2d edition, my NEW LEXICON WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, and\ndictionary.com. M. Andre-Driussi, in LEXICON URTHUS, failed me as well.\nSo what's the word *really* mean?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " From OED, 2nd edition:\n\nmanvantara [Skr., f. Manu + antara period. ] In Hindu cosmology: One of\nthe 14 periods, each presided over by a special `Manu' or cosmic deity,\nwhich make up a kalpa.\n\n * 1830 Lyell Princ. Geol. I. ii. 6 There has been a long succession\nof manwantaras or periods.\n\n * 1834 Nat. Philos. III. Astron. App. 117 (Usef. Knowl. Soc.) The\nKalpa was subdivided into 14 Manwantaras, each of 308448000 years with\nthe addition of 1728000 years to make up the Kalpa." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Ephrem Christopher Walborn - http://www.tuirgin.com\njabber: tuirgin at jabber.org | yahoo: tuirgin | msn: ephrem at tuirgin.com\n=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=\nLibro, dejame libre... my poems haven't eaten poems,\nthe devour passionate events... [Pablo Neruda from Oda al Libro (I)]" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-04-01T11:59:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<200503291117.j2TBHpBc077353@mailserver3.hushmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 3/29/05 5:17 AM, thalassocrat at nym.hush.com at thalassocrat at nym.hush.com\nwrote:\nRoy says inter alia:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As I've said earlier, the destruction of Urth was largely a\nsymbolic\npunishment; symbolic because Urth was man's ancestral birthplace,\nand\nmankind was dispersed too far and wide in the galaxy (galaxies?)\nfor the\nHierogrammates to overcome entropy (135) and hit mankind all at\nonce. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I feel that \"symbolic\" and \"punishment\" must both be wrong,\nsomehow. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed. As I read it, the punishment was placing the black hole in the Sun,\nand the New Sun is the lifting of that punishment. Tzadkiel's words to\nSeverian at the \"trial,\" and Apheta's words afterwards, make no sense if the\ncoming of the New Sun is supposed to be a punishment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Similarly, when Alpheta tells Sev that Urth is not impportant, I\nthink she is lying, as she lied about humanity not being important." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apheta says as much on p. 162." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It must be that Ushas is a necessary part of the Plan. And it must,\n\nsomehow, be necessary for the victim to consent in the sacrfice, by\n\nthe assent of Sev as Epitome.\n\nI don't claim to know from the text why this should be the case,\nbut if it isn't, I don't think the narrative makes any sense." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, I agree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Personally, I find the idea of one person exemplifying the whole,\nand the idea of a Greater End requiring the death of multitudes, to\n\nbe quite repellant." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Once more, I agree.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424DECB7.8090007@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T16:59:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<001601c53119$d83dcf40$663ec6d8@rclackey.stic.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nIn the current universe, where Urth's sun is dying, Typhon set out to \nbuild\n\na Second Empire to rival the First. The H's weren't going to let him. They\nstopped him, partly out of spite, as revenge for the wrongs done to their\nancestors during the course of their creation by Man, and partly at the\nbehest of the Increate, who had been down that road before and didn't like\nwhere it ended. The H's are archangels who have the ear of the Increate, and\nwho do his bidding. If that last statement isn't true, then Severian was a\ncolossal dupe in an epic crime and Wolfe's Urth Cycle is a farce." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whoa, whoa!\n\nI had thought, that in ( I believe) The Citadel of the Autarch, Melito's\nstory pretty conclusively said that the Hierogrammates definitely did\n/not/ have the confidence of the Increate.\n\n\"The eagle looked at the angel when he heard what the cock said, and\nthe angel looked at the eagle. 'The Pancreator is infinitely far from \nus', the\nangel said. 'And thus infinitely far from me, though I fly so much higher\nthan you. I guess at his desires- no once can do otherwise.' \"\n\nThe eagle is the hierodules, and the Angel Hierogrammates.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E01F1.6020808@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T18:22:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\n\nIt indicates his attitude, which allows him to do as he does. But: do \nyou think it is right or wrong for him to hold this attitude? And if \nright, then why?\n\nWhat's bizarre about the stance I am taking is that by it, I don't \nintend to discount the actual narrative of the New Sun books, or the \nactions of Severian. Nonetheless I feel this is a not only justified \nbut INTENDED point of view, and that these opinions are not \ncontradictory. I hope I can be forgiven for this lapse (though I think \nit is an oddity that Wolfe intended to produce).\n\nCivet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That there's some excellent questions. To counter-query: Do you feel \nthat rights and the ontological status of beings which produces\nthose rights should be treated as being binary, or as falling on a \ncontinuum (ex. apparently fundamentalist Christian theology\nin which animals and the enviroment have absolutely no rights, and \nhumans can exploit them freely for any purpose as much as\nthey like., or ex. pro-abortion people who consider the mother to have \nmore rights than the fetus.).\n If you opt\nfor the latter, then the H's who occupy a higher, realer plane of \nreality have justification for sacrificing so many\nto their inscrutable projects. if the former, then they are merely \ncommiting murder, even if the ends are themselves laudable.\n\nA corpse can change nothing, in any final accounting. Do people trapped \non a doomed dying planet have a chance to matter?\nDo people only matter in that they matter?\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0A83.2090703@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T18:59:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nAn exchange:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Allow me to draw a parallel with WK; does it not seem to you that \nUrth, dying Urth, is more than a little uncanny and bizaare? What logic\nis there to it, what substanial reality? it seems almost a dream of \nmadness, or a warped parody of what should be (everything decaying \nand in\nruins.) We pass from place to place with little propelling plot, in \npicaresque manner, though it feels intuitively that there is a vast \nhidden logic\nwebs of meaning (I thinking of the ambience of \"Foucault's Pendulum\" \nhere, but less factual and explicit). Does not Old Urth seem unreal, \nas unreal as the angel in the Knight would have seemed in Muspell?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In short, YES. It has always seemed surreal to me, from the first time \nI layed eyes on it. And the more I learned, the stranger its elements \nbecame.\n\nI have always also found it strange that some of the veterans here \navoid discussing this surreality like the plague. I do not know \nwhether to attribute this to the idea that it is all old hat to them, \nnow... or whether they simply weren't sure what to make of it. It \nbecomes even more perplexing when people who I would expect to know \nthe best seem to approach the story in a very literal sci-fi narrative \nfashion.\n\nBut riddle me this, those who know: why, when choosing his whole \nqabbalistic naming scheme in BotNS, did Wolfe choose to ground the \nrealm of Urth under the name of \"Yesod\"? This is a level too high for \nany literal story. Shouldn't it be \"Malkhut\"?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Urth in TBOTNS is lit by an old sun; its inhabitants seem unreal- we \nknow this by how many of them turn out to not be- even Agilus, a \nbasic scammer is suspected of otherworldly origins- and it doesnot \nseem unreasonable!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, YES. Wolfe produces a state of practical paranoia when it comes \nto generating connections between characters. If this is accidental \nthen it is a mark of poor, poor craftsmanship. We have good reason to \nbelieve that this is not due to poor craftsmanship. On the surface \nsuch a scenario could not produce an intelligible story. And yet one \nhazy level removed from this, is it not true that such connections \nseem to pass unnoticed?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is interesting to note that at around BOTNSs writing, the paranoiac \nstyle was begining to develop." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is precisely the shadows that reside in the *higher* levels, and \nthe more material bodies in the lower. Perhaps we mourn for the \nslaying of the shadows because in a way all the slayings of all the \n\"real people\" are just the physical manifestations of that single \nslaying of shadows, represented over and over in the lower realms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In Platonism, the lower are imperfect, nigh-disgusting parodies and \napings of the higer abstractions" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But it is the nature of such a structure to make it difficult to \ndistinguish the higher from the lower. I feel I'm being cryptic here, \nbut I've thought of 5 different ways to say this as I sit here and \nevery one of them only works if you already *apprehend*, in some way, \nwhat I'm trying to say. Perhaps the only way to express such a thing \nis to write a story, in which people won't be able to isolate the \nelements in an intelligible way but may still be able to convey \nsomething that everyone intuitively understands yet is unable to \nexplain..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"The Ascian said, 'All who speak Correct Thought speak well. Where\nthen is the superiority of some students to others? It is in the speaking.\nIntelligents students speak Correct Thought intelligently. The hearer knows\nby the intonations of their voices that they understand. By this superior\nspeaking of intelligent students, Correct Thought is passed, like fire, from\none to another.'\n I think that none of us realized he was listening. We were all a trifle\nstartled to hear him speak now. After a moment, Foila said, 'He means you\nshould not judge by the content of the stories, but by how well each was\ntold. I'm not sure I agree with that- still, there may be something in \nit.' \"\n\nIt is my sincere belief that the Acian would have won the story context-\nthe best story is one the reader helps invent.\n\n\n~Maru\n\nAn analogy I often think of is differentiation from calculus: It \nabstracts vital information regarding the rates of changes, and is utterly\nnecessary, and makes much plain- but it irretriviably loses much \nspecific information. Generality at the cost of context.\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0AD9.9000202@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:00:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nYou're right, that was a grievous error on my part.\n\nThe use of \"Briah\" is confusing no matter which way you look at it. \n\"Briah\" is one of a few fairly common spellings for the word indicated \nin Lexicon Urthus, although the entry there is a little misleading. \nWhat \"Briah\" actually means, or stands for, changes depending on what \nyou're talking about. This could be because the qabbalistic traditions \nare fragmented, or just because of a general concept shift (in other \nwords, the uses could be equivalent). In either event \"Briah\" isn't a \nsefirot, as Yesod is; the two are categorically different in a way. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "....\n\nSo is 'Briah' one of the inverse sephirah? (Afraid the technical term \nescapes me at the moment.)\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0B2E.8040506@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:02:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Increate on trial", "in_reply_to": "<424C82F2.9040609@pressroom.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Sister-list\"?\nBefore my time- a little history please?\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Kirby wrote:\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Personally, I've come to like the idea of a \"futuristic novel\" set in \na vast distant future that occurs in the staggeringly distant \"past\" \n(if that's the proper word for something that occurs beyond multiple \niterations of the collapse and rebirth of Time). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Actually, I like the idea, too. There are, uh, cycles within the Cycle,\nand this idea undergirds the vastness of that proposition." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Its just the sort of twisting Wolfe does all the time with his \nstories and characters. Maybe he didn't think of it until later but I \ndon't find it especially undermined in the text (even the quote David \nKirby mentioned since the Bang-Gnab theory Wolfe is playing with was \nsimilar to the parallel universe concept of String theory). I don't \nsee it as a plot hole at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From what I've read on this list and its now-deceased \"sister\" list, \nit's also like Wolfe to say things that undermine conclusions that are \nreasonably reached from basic readings of his texts. I suspect he does \nthis on purpose, to keep us digging, but that may be giving him too \nmuch credit; he certainly enjoys readers' reactions to puzzles and \n\"Easter eggs\" he places in the texts. Even if he does think everything \nis crystal clear.\n\nAnd despite what I recall being the ascendency of the Bang-Gnab theory \nin the early '80s, when NEW SUN was first published, doesn't current \nthinking have it that the universe won't \"Gnab\" on us, won't \ncontinually expand, but will reach a state of (very desolate) \nsteadiness? That's the assumption of Brian Greene's 2004 book, THE \nFABRIC OF THE COSMOS; it is likely based on 2003 ideas and data, but I \ndon't recall seeing anything more recent.\n\nSo maybe Wolfe *thought* he was correct when he talked about (or \n\"translated\") the Bang-Gnab theory, but our (*cough,* *cough*) \n*vastly* superior knowledge of the cosmos renders that assumption \nincorrect.\n\n(I'm sure you're aware, by the way, that the parallel universe concept \nof \"hard\" physics dates to the 1950s, quite a while before string \ntheory came along in any form.)\n\n -- David" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0C9D.60305@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:08:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Definitions of 'Fascism'", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That was great!\n\nI'd have to say, I think that whatever is in Dune, it ain't fascism, since\nDune fails some of the traits mentioned. 'Elitist', 'oppressive' \n'contemptous of the masses\nand averages' maybe. But not 'fascist'.\nBy my count, Dune fails 1, 5, 7, 14, 11 and probably 3 tho' that one is \nmore debatable.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jason Willard wrote:\nHope this isn't too long!\nRobert O. Paxton in his book The Anatomy of Fascism says: \"Fascism may \nbe defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive \npreoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and \nby compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a \nmass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy \nbut effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons \ndemocratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without \nethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external \nexpansion.\"\nRoger Griffin defines fascism as \"a genus of political ideology whose \nmythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of \npopulist ultranationalism.\"\n\nUmberto Eco lists the following 14 traits of 'ur-fascism':\n\"...But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline \na list of features that are typical of what I would like to call \nUr-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized \ninto a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also \ntypical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough \nthat one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.\n\n1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the /cult of tradition/. \nTraditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it \ntypical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French \nrevolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction \nto classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of \ndifferent religions (most of them indulgently accepted by the Roman \nPantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of \nhuman history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist \nmystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of \nforgotten languages in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in \nthe scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.\n\nThis new culture had to be /syncretistic/. Syncretism is not only, as \nthe dictionary says, \"the combination of different forms of belief or \npractice\"; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of \nthe original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they \nseem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all \nare alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.\n\nAs a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has \nbeen already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep \ninterpreting its obscure message.\n\nOne has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find \nthe major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by \ntraditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential \ntheoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius \nEvola, merged the Holy Grail with /The Protocols of the Elders of \nZion/, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact \nthat the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently \nbroadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and \nGramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.\n\nIf you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled \nas New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I \nknow, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and \nStonehenge?/that/ is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.\n\n2. Traditionalism implies the /rejection of modernism/. Both Fascists \nand Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually \nreject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even \nthough Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of \nmodernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and \nEarth (/Blut und Boden/). The rejection of the modern world was \ndisguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly \nconcerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of \ncourse). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the \nbeginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined \nas /irrationalism/.\n\n3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of /action for action's \nsake/. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or \nwithout, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. \nTherefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical \nattitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a \nsymptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering's alleged statement (\"When I hear \ntalk of culture I reach for my gun\") to the frequent use of such \nexpressions as \"degenerate intellectuals,\" \"eggheads,\" \"effete snobs,\" \n\"universities are a nest of reds.\" The official Fascist intellectuals \nwere mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal \nintelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.\n\n4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The \ncritical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of \nmodernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises \ndisagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, \ndisagreement is treason.\n\n5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up \nand seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural \n/fear of difference/. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely \nfascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism \nis racist by definition.\n\n6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is \nwhy one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the \n/appeal to a frustrated middle class/, a class suffering from an \neconomic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened \nby the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old \n\"proletarians\" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are \nlargely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow \nwill find its audience in this new majority.\n\n7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism \nsays that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in \nthe same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only \nones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus \nat the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the /obsession with \na plot/, possibly an international one. The followers must feel \nbesieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to \nxenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are \nusually the best target because they have the advantage of being at \nthe same time inside and outside. In the US, a prominent instance of \nthe plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's /The New World \nOrder/, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.\n\n8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and \nforce of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of \nEnglishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the \npoor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a \nsecret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be \nconvinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous \nshifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too \nstrong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars \nbecause they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating \nthe force of the enemy.* *\n\n9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is \nlived for struggle. Thus /pacifism is trafficking with the enemy/. It \nis bad because /life is permanent warfare/. This, however, brings \nabout an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there \nmust be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of \nthe world. But such a \"final solution\" implies a further era of peace, \na Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No \nfascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.\n\n10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar \nas it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic \nelitism cruelly implies /contempt for the weak/. Ur-Fascism can only \nadvocate a /popular elitism/. Every citizen belongs to the best people \nof the world, the members of the party are the best among the \ncitizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the \nparty. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the \nLeader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically \nbut was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon \nthe weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a \nruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a \nmilitary model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, \nand each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of \nmass elitism.\n\n11. In such a perspective /everybody is educated to become a hero/. In \nevery mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist \nideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked \nwith the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the \nFalangists was /Viva la Muerte/ (in English it should be translated as \n\"Long Live Death!\"). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told \nthat death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are \ntold that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By \ncontrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the \nbest reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to \ndie. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.\n\n12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, \nthe Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is \nthe origin of /machismo/ (which implies both disdain for women and \nintolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from \nchastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to \nplay, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons doing so becomes \nan ersatz phallic exercise.\n\n13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a /selective populism/, a qualitative \npopulism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual \nrights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact \nonly from a quantitative point of view one follows the decisions of \nthe majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have \nno rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic \nentity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human \nbeings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their \ninterpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not \nact; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the \nPeople is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of \nqualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or \nthe Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet \npopulism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of \ncitizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.\n\nBecause of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be /against \n\"rotten\" parliamentary governments/. One of the first sentences \nuttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was \"I could have \ntransformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my \nmaniples\"?\"maniples\" being a subdivision of the traditional Roman \nlegion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for \nhis maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. \nWherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament \nbecause it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell \nUr-Fascism.\n\n14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in \n/1984/, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But \nelements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. \nAll the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished \nvocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the \ninstruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready \nto identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently \ninnocent form of a popular talk show...\"\n\nSo, I don't know if this particular word, 'fascism', is the one we \nwant to be using so frequently... or we should at least be more aware \nof its subtleties." } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0D13.5010501@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:10:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000c01c52fe0$dcac8240$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\nI wrote:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And what about all the generations who *will* be born on Urth if the\nNew Sun doesn't come? Not to mention all those born on all the other\nworlds to which humanity is transplanted after Urth dies. Don't they \ncount?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush countered:\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Who's to say humanity would have been transplanted?\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Master Ashe says.\n\n\"At this time, many of your people are already gone,\" Master Ashe\ncontinued. \"Those you call the cagogens have mercifully carried them to\nfairer worlds. Many more will leave before the final victory of the ice.\nI am myself, you see, descended from those refugees.\" TCOTA. Chapter\nXVII \n\nHumanity does not die if Severian fails to bring the New Sun. It is\ntaken to better worlds, where it continues. \n\nSeverian’s murder of millions can’t be said to preserve any more unborn\ngenerations than Ozymandias’ murder of thousands.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The essential question is whether the Urth being able to continue \nsupporting life will probably\nproduce more human life than the cost of making it so capable. With an \nopen-ended universe, that\ncan almost be guaranteed.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E0E57.3090501@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:15:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Adam Stephanides wrote:\nBut Sev CAN objectively analyze both outcomes.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps he can (though, given his mental condition, his ability to\n\"objectively analyze\" anything seems questionable)....\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sev often egages in clever reasoning, and deduction in complex\nsituations. His recollections are suspect, not his ability to make\ndecent decisions.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<424E14EA.9000309@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-01T19:43:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Necromancy, and Severian on trial", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\n\nMaru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not just unproblematic, but commendable. Severian _could_ have \nrefused, and doomed the Urthians to their previous doom, but he did \nnot, he took that cross on himself. The situation is analogous to a \ndoomed terminal dying patient (say, a 110 year old man), who somehow \nhas multiple livers in perfect shape (bear with me), and if you, the \ndoctor will take that burden on yourself, you can slice out those \nlivers and give them to a bunch of other people who are about to \nperish of not-having-liver-ness, thus saving say a dozen lives while \nhastening another out the door." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The example you describe is similar to a standard thought problem \nbrought up by (or against) utilitarians, and it's harsher than you \ndescribe. Let's say you're a doctor with multiple patients waiting for \ntransplants. In the ER you happen to get a friendless hobo who has \nnothing wrong with him, he just passed out drunk. Now maybe his liver \nhappens to be shot, but all his other organs are in good shape. As a \nutilitarian the commendable thing to do is to carve up the hobo for \nspare parts for your other patients.\n\nBut even further than that, in that doctor's position, as a \nutilitarian, the even BETTER thing for you to do is to send a couple \norderlies out around town collecting the homeless until you get as \nmany organs as you need. (Of course it doesn't *have* to be homeless \npeople, but the homeless provide optimal utility because fewer people \nwill be distressed by their passing and they tend to lead low-quality \nlives anyway).\n\nNow, I understand that there are some utilitarians who would \nwholeheartedly give the thumbs-up to this (although as far as I can \ntell *most* of them react to this example by coming up with a \nrationale as to why they wouldn't really do that), and you may be one \nof them. However if you don't see why those of us who don't share your \nview would find this sort of thing disturbing, \"ghoulish\" even, I \ndon't know what to tell you." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I do find that ghoulish: what if you are *wrong*? Think of all the \npeople you just brutally slaughtered, and of the breakdown in public \norder that engenders and all the other side effects of it... I think it \ntips the scale towards, y'know, not doing that in real life (not to \nmention the whole going to pound-you-in-da-butt prison for the rest of \nyour life etc), and so I guess I'd be one of those utilitarians who \nhedges. Now, if I could be darn certain (100%) that such dicing and \nslicing would in fact result in a greater good, than yeah. But of \ncourse, such an ideal universe we do not live in, and is but an academic \npoint." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The difference is: Severian's plan /worked/. All the credit, all the \nblame..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the consequentialist world perhaps, but the comment you're \nresponding to was from a duty perspective, and in matters of \nduty/rules, justification doesn't proceed by results.\n\nEven utilitarian systems, in practice, aren't entirely \nconsequentialist; if you drink two cases of beer, pack up your 4 kids \nin a car and go driving down the road at 100 mph, even the utilitarian \nwill not morally praise you because by some freak accident this \ncombination of actions just happened to save a bus full of nuns.\n\nThere also remains the question: by what standard are you judging \nSeverian's plan \"good\" (and thus his actions \"good\", because the plan \nworked)? And this is ultimately the exact same question we started \nwith when trying to judge Severian. Appealing to his success does not \nadvance us any steps closer to an answer to this." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We strive for plans maximizing good. Severian's actions, while having \nhorrible intermediate results, results in greater good, both in theory\nand in practice (the Green man remember); we applaude." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Another thing: Severian is the rightful autarch of Urth; as a \nfeudal/fascist ruler, he claims\nultimate authority over his subjects. No wonder he wouldn't worry \nwhether he should do it or not." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He is not the Autarch of Urth, he is the Autarch of the Commonwealth, \na single kingdom on Urth among others. But even if he were the Autarch \nof all of Urth, why should this matter to *us* in judging his character?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because what you do with things has different moral values depending on \nwhose you think they are (ex. moving a TV from house to house depends on \njust who you think owns it, one is helpful and the other is theft.). And \nI'm pretty sure the Autarch is the 'legal' ruler of Urth, from all the \nother planets views anyway. And if the Hierodules didn't think so as \nwell, why would a petty ruler of one little kingdom have been chosen as \nEpitome mm? The Autarch as legitmate ruler of Urth (but not de facto) \nwas certainly the impression I got. Anyone care to weigh in?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As a side note with talk of fascism running rampant in the list I find \nmyself reflecting that tyranny and fascism were not aspects that I \nstrongly associated with Autarchy when I first read the books. My \nfirst impression, even at this point, when someone calls Severian \"the \nAutarch\" is to think: self-ruled, self-ruler. Only by extension do I \nreach an idea of governing others." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"To rule others, first rule yourself\" ?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It could be that as Autarch, he has already been judged or advised so \nmany times, by people so far above the norm in intelligence, \nknowledge, and experience that he doesn't give a flip about what the \nreader may think, he stands with the giants, and their appraisal is \nwhat matters." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Except that he obviously does care about the reader's opinion of his \nactions, even down to his relationships with various women.\n\nIn subsequent conversation since your post it has been cited that \nSeverian doesn't appear to even recognize the consequences of what \nhe's going to do until he gets to the trial. This is interesting, but \nI think that he is either being evasive with us on this point and \npretending ignorance, or else he kept himself *willfully* ignorant up \nto that point. Severian is perfectly aware that natives of Urth - \nperhaps even *most* natives of Urth - do not like what he is planning \non doing, would stop him if they could, and may even try to kill him. \nHow does he know this without having some clue as to why they're so \ndead set against his project? And doesn't it seem odd that he would \nnot ask this question, even as they did try to kill him?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Before he became Autarch (the subsequent events on Urth are veild to us \nand are of little help with answering your questions) I can find\nonly two incidents of anti-New Sun ness; the magicians, who give no \nreason for it, and which forces Severian to guess why (I don't think his\nguess is either affirmed or denied by anything; I could be wrong \nhowever.) and Typhon, who Sev would dismiss as not having any reasons\nworth considering because Typhon has a... shall we say 'vested interest' \nin the matter? And once he became Autarch it was a bit late to \nreconsider his views." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian in this respect is a figure of - for lack of a better word - \n\"fanatical\" certainty. And this seems a certainty based more on some \nintuition or faith, some inherent value he holds, rather than a matter \nof rational deliberation.\n...\nCivet" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "~Maru\n\nIncidentally Iowerth, reading the dailies and mags in Britain, I think I \nfigured out what you were referring to;\nyou were referencing the Tories plans to, if they win the 2005 general \nelections (req. since it has been whatever years\nsince the last, and nobody called an election voluntarily) and form a \ngov.'t etc, hold the line on increased public\nspending at least a little. Right?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c53790$89b5f9b0$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T06:30:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<424E0E57.3090501@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said, quoting me:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Severian’s murder of millions can’t be said to preserve any\nmore unborn generations than Ozymandias’ murder of thousands." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nThe essential question is whether the Urth being able to continue \nsupporting life will probably\nproduce more human life than the cost of making it so capable. With an \nopen-ended universe, that\ncan almost be guaranteed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere\npreservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's\nmass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still \"No\".\n\nIn the wider context, I don't see why the ability of the Urth to\nproduce, or not to produce, a certain number of humans, should be the\n'essential' question.\n\n'Why did so many innocents have to be sacrificed in the first place?'\nseems a more important question to me." } ] }, { "message_id": "<424EB736.70002@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T07:16:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000001c53790$89b5f9b0$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\nMaru said, quoting me:\n\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Severian’s murder of millions can’t be said to preserve any\nmore unborn generations than Ozymandias’ murder of thousands.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The essential question is whether the Urth being able to continue \nsupporting life will probably\nproduce more human life than the cost of making it so capable. With an \nopen-ended universe, that\ncan almost be guaranteed.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere\npreservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's\nmass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still \"No\".\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not 'mere preservation'. To preserve something is to keep that which already\nis. The default for Urth is to dwindle and die. Keeping that course of \nevents\nby not intervening (and not causing the death of untold millions yada \nyada) would\nbe 'mere preservation', since that course of events is what already is. \nThis is not\nthe 'preservation' of future generations- it is *causing to come about*. \nGeneration,\nnot preservation.\nAnd considering the near-infinite depths of time, the extraordinary \nnumbers of humans\nand Green people and other un-hinted at civilizations and races, all \nthat *easily* compensates\nfor the death of the multitudes, who frankly were doomed anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In the wider context, I don't see why the ability of the Urth to\nproduce, or not to produce, a certain number of humans, should be the\n'essential' question.\n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You don't? Do you follow ethico-political issues at all? What is the \nabortion\ndebate over if not over the *potential* of a fetus, or the debate over \nSchiavo\nif not over her *potential* to one day wake up and be what we consider human\nagain (In which case any withholding of extaordinary medical attention would\nhave been murder.)?\nThis potential thing is ingrained in humanity by evolution, and by a \ncalculus\nof odds and actions- why 'women and children first'? But this is a tangent." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "'Why did so many innocents have to be sacrificed in the first place?'\nseems a more important question to me.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ask the Increate. Or the Hierogrammates. Seems to be because that was \nthe only way to stop\ntheir revenge.\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<000001c537cb$d0b7ea90$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "from": { "name": "Tony Ellis", "address": "tonyellis69 at btopenworld.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T13:35:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on Trial", "in_reply_to": "<424EB736.70002@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wrote:\nIn the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere\npreservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's\nmass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still \"No\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Maru wrote:\nNot 'mere preservation'. To preserve something is to keep that which\nalready\nis. The default for Urth is to dwindle and die." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, mere preservation. The Green Man future 'already is'. It's just as\nreal – or unreal - as the ice future. We meet someone who lives there.\nBringing the New Sun preserves the generations of one future, not\nbringing it preserves the generations of another." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...all that *easily* compensates\nfor the death of the multitudes, who frankly were doomed anyway." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, they weren't. The multitudes would have continued to live their\nordinary lives if Severian hadn't drowned them all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you follow ethico-political issues at all? What is the abortion\ndebate over if not over the *potential* of a fetus, or the debate over \nSchiavo if not over her *potential* to one day wake up and be what we\nconsider human again?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The last time I followed ethico-political issues, I don't recall that\nplanets had to be drowned to realise the potential of a fetus, or the\nunfortunate Mrs Schiavo. Since a planet does have to be drowned to\nrealise the potential of a handful of survivors in the New Sun future, I\nthink that's more important. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<424F1268.10105@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T13:45:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on Trial", "in_reply_to": "<000001c537cb$d0b7ea90$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:\n...." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...all that *easily* compensates\nfor the death of the multitudes, who frankly were doomed anyway." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, they weren't. The multitudes would have continued to live their\nordinary lives if Severian hadn't drowned them all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On a dying planet. With the most dehumanizing gov.'t ever conceived\npoised to take over their lives, liberties, minds (Abaia & co. ?) quite \nliterally.\nWith a sun guttering out.\nI am curious as to what your life is like if you can consider that \n'ordinary'." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Do you follow ethico-political issues at all? What is the abortion\ndebate over if not over the *potential* of a fetus, or the debate over \nSchiavo if not over her *potential* to one day wake up and be what we\nconsider human again?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The last time I followed ethico-political issues, I don't recall that\nplanets had to be drowned to realise the potential of a fetus, or the\nunfortunate Mrs Schiavo. Since a planet does have to be drowned to\nrealise the potential of a handful of survivors in the New Sun future, I\nthink that's more important. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not just a handful. A handful prolfically reproducing to repopulate the \nplanet.\nA 'handful' which will persist throughout periods of time that if you \neven apprehended\na smidgen of their yawning aeons of time would drive you mad. A \n'handful' which will\nquite literally engender a number of descendants which are difficult to \nexpress in your\nmundane numbers, partially fused as they are with infinity.\nGetting the idea of how many people have a chance to live should \nSeverian choose to sacrifice\na few? It is not inconceivably somewhere in the range of quadrillions \nfor each\ncurrent Urthian Sev. sacrifices.\nTo tie this in to Catholicism, is it unreasonable to demand the death of \none man to save and give\na chance at eternal life for multitudes yet to come?\n\n~Maru\n\n'Hmm. I am puzzled, and not a little alarmed.'\n-Sin City" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T17:08:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<424E01F1.6020808@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To summarize before trying to answer, what I take it you're asking is \n(shifting the focus from Severian to the Hieros, since on this view Severian \nis just a tool of the Hieros) whether the Hieros, as higher beings, are \nabove judgment with regard to their plans for Urth. (Although to be honest \nI'm not sure that the Hieros plan for things to be this way, or if they \nsimply accept it as an inevitability and willingly play their roles).\n\nFollowing Aquinas, God is beyond human judgment and the Hieros could be \nthemselves just tools of God, or else beings who operate, like God, in a \nsphere where our judgments are not qualified to reach. Theologically \nspeaking once you've taken this first move, of allowing that Sev is really a \ntool of a higher power with no choice in the matter, you've mooted the whole \nquestion before you begin; this way of looking at Sev is not a perspective \nwhich allows us to *ask* ethical questions in the first place.\n\nTo move things one step down and more safely answer the direct queries here:\nPersonally I think rights do follow a continuum scale to an extent, and I \nthink this accords *generally* with our intuitions in how we ought to deal \nwith animals and other people in a variety of circumstances. It's certainly \narguable, though, so I'm not going to claim my opinion is obviously or \nself-evidently true.\n\nWhat I can say is that thinking of rights along a continuum scale do not \nautomatically authorize the move you suggest. On a simplistic level, we can \nimagine a limited continuum scale on which \"rational beings\" form one \nendpoint, and insenate matter (rocks, let's say) the other; by this scale \nthe Hieros would stand on an equal level with humans, cacogens, etc. And if \nyou don't like rationality as an endpoint, others are imaginable (\"moral \nagents\" perhaps).\n\nBut this is a tricky question because it is very easy to slip back toward \nthe theological standpoint, wholly or partially. For example we could \nimagine the Hieros having \"super-rational powers\", etc. To this end just \nremember that our ethical judgments are bound to *our* way of thinking, what \nwe call rationality, and we can judge things by no other standard. What I am \ncalling the \"theological move\" is not a way of saying that we *can't* judge \ngodly or super-rational beings on our own terms - we can - but it is a \nnormative claim that we *ought not* do so.\n\nAnd, yes, if we make such a move then we will end up exempting Severian from \njudgment; this was one of my original points in the post about judging \nSeverian. But if so we should be aware that this is what we are doing, and \ntry to reach an understanding of why we're doing it, how we got to this \npoint of view." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That there's some excellent questions. To counter-query: Do you feel that \nrights and the ontological status of beings which produces\nthose rights should be treated as being binary, or as falling on a \ncontinuum (ex. apparently fundamentalist Christian theology\nin which animals and the enviroment have absolutely no rights, and humans \ncan exploit them freely for any purpose as much as\nthey like., or ex. pro-abortion people who consider the mother to have more \nrights than the fetus.).\nIf you opt\nfor the latter, then the H's who occupy a higher, realer plane of reality \nhave justification for sacrificing so many\nto their inscrutable projects. if the former, then they are merely \ncommiting murder, even if the ends are themselves laudable.\n\nA corpse can change nothing, in any final accounting. Do people trapped on \na doomed dying planet have a chance to matter?\nDo people only matter in that they matter?\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-02T20:46:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Utilitarians, Severian, and Consequences", "in_reply_to": "<424E14EA.9000309@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do find that ghoulish: what if you are *wrong*?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well isn't that just it? In any moral system where you're supposed to be \nguided by consequences (which you can't know in advance) you *always* be \nwrong. And since results aren't to be judged just on their immediate effects \nbut also on indirect consequences extending indefinitely into the future, \nwhen can you finally settle and say \"that was good\" or \"that was bad\"? G.E. \nMoore, a rather tough-minded utilitarian, took the logical consequences of \nthis and simply extended them - perhaps there never had been, or will be, an \naction which can be effectively evaluated in terms of its true utility. In \nthe presence of doubt, he said, the utilitarian will simply \"do the done \nthing\", that is, follow the same customary rules of thumb that \nnon-utilitarians use.\n\nThis isn't exactly satisfactory, because at that point there's no point to \nbeing a \"utilitarian\". What seems to be needed is some form of justification \nfor doing what you *think* will produce the most utility, but this is hard \nfor a traditional act utilitarian to accept because it seems to be \nrule-based rather than consequence-based. (ie, in any given case it's always \nbetter to *actually* produce more utility than it is to, by rule-following, \njust *try* to produce more utility). It's not impossible to build a system \nthat deals with it, but you would probably find such systems a little more \narcane than what you're thinking of." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Think of all the people you just brutally slaughtered," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This isn't an objection that's really open to the utilitarian, because while \nit's true that if you're wrong you've just caused a great deal of harm, on \nthe other hand if you abstain from acting and you're wrong about that, you \nhave just condemned an even larger number of people who need transplants to \ndeath.\n\nThere is no inherent virtue in refusing to act for a utilitarian; the \nresults of inaction are just as substantial as the results of action. But \nthe next one you mention *is* commonly used:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and of the breakdown in public order that engenders and all the other side \neffects of it... I think it tips the scale towards, y'know, not doing that \nin real life" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is a reasonable objection, although I'd note that if you really start \napplying this standard, then the utilitarian starts \"doing the done thing\" \nmore and more... utilitarianism becomes less distinct because its proponent \nis constrained from actually acting according to its dictates.\n\nAlso, it is a bit disconcerting to try and advance any ethic which, if it \nwere followed, would cause widespread breakdown of laws and considerable \nsocial harm. Side question: if you could create an entirely utilitarian \nsociety, what would be its laws? How would punishments and rewards be \nallotted? [I don't think the list would appreciate an actual exploration of \nthis question, though.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "yeah. But of course, such an ideal universe we do not live in, and is but \nan academic point." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If it requires an ideal universe for you to act according to your ethic, \nthen it's not a very practical ethic.\n\nSeverian's case is interesting in that we're stipulating that he knows with \n100% certainty the *immediate* results of his action, and some of the \nsecondary/indirect results. We have somewhat discussed what conclusions a \nperson who tried to judge consequences would reach in his position. You have \nan immediate loss of almost all animal life on the planet, with a later \nrebirth (and future generations that seem to turn out pretty well). If he \nfails to act then people live out their lives for generations, eventually \nmost of those remaining get evacuated to other worlds which may or may not \nbe just as good as Ushas (no basis for comparison here). This calculus, I \nthink, tends to weigh heavily against Sev's action *unless* you attach some \nvery heavy importance to \"human life on Ushas\" as opposed to \"human life on \nany other planet\". I think it's reasonable to say that Severian, in some \nslightly confusing way, does count life on Ushas to be somehow more \nsignificant... but I also have the general feeling that Sev *didn't* think \nit out and weigh the consequences, he just acted decisively." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We strive for plans maximizing good. Severian's actions, while having \nhorrible intermediate results, results in greater good, both in theory\nand in practice (the Green man remember); we applaude." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Green man, or something as good as the Green Man, could have arisen \nelsewhere in one of the other worlds humanity was spread across. But this is \npretty much implicit in the above." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Because what you do with things has different moral values depending on \nwhose you think they are (ex. moving a TV from house to house depends on \njust who you think owns it, one is helpful and the other is theft.). And \nI'm pretty sure the Autarch is the 'legal' ruler of Urth, from all the \nother planets views anyway. And if the Hierodules didn't think so as well, \nwhy would a petty ruler of one little kingdom have been chosen as Epitome \nmm? The Autarch as legitmate ruler of Urth (but not de facto) was \ncertainly the impression I got. Anyone care to weigh in?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think this starts to wade into the more murky, symbolic areas of the text. \nTaken literally, though, I can't really think of a way in which we would \nassent that it would be morally laudable for George W. to kill us all \nbecause he's president. If we imagine him as king, tyrant, or whatever else, \nit doesn't really change our judgment of such an act.\n\nNow if you're saying that if we had been born in such a tyranny we might \njudge differently, well, perhaps, but perhaps not. Would such a judgment be \njust as valid as the one we make now in our more \"enlightened\" age? We're \nnot free to take this out unless we're moral relativists, and that's not a \nposition anyone here has endorsed." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As a side note with talk of fascism running rampant in the list I find \nmyself reflecting that tyranny and fascism were not aspects that I \nstrongly associated with Autarchy when I first read the books. My first \nimpression, even at this point, when someone calls Severian \"the Autarch\" \nis to think: self-ruled, self-ruler. Only by extension do I reach an idea \nof governing others." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"To rule others, first rule yourself\" ?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or perhaps, like Talos's play, Urth is full of just a few people who wear \ndifferent masks and play different roles as their parts require... then Sev \nmight literally just be ruling himself. But that's another of those murky \nmetaphysical tales." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Iorwerth Thomas", "address": "iorweththomas at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-04T07:50:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Very OT: Tories", "in_reply_to": "<424E14EA.9000309@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, it was more the attempt to use a 'pseudo-Kantian' categorical \nprinciple in order to enact oppressive laws on an ethnic minority, i.e. the \ntravelling comminity [1].\n\nBut that'll do equally well. And I can't quite remember its relevancy to \nwhatever point I was trying to make at the time anyhow.\n\nHope you liked our lovely weather... :)\n\nIorwerth\n\n\n[1] Not that there isn't a problem; but this isn't the way to solve it - \nand it's largely Howard's fault from when the Tories were in charge anyhow." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Incidentally Iowerth, reading the dailies and mags in Britain, I think I \nfigured out what you were referring to;\nyou were referencing the Tories plans to, if they win the 2005 general \nelections (req. since it has been whatever years\nsince the last, and nobody called an election voluntarily) and form a \ngov.'t etc, hold the line on increased public\nspending at least a little. Right?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4251C107.1030702@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-04T15:34:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Very OT: Tories", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh. Darn- I saw a little about that (columnists inveighing against the \nHuman Rights Act or some such) but it never\nocurred to me that that was what you were referring to...\n\nAnd actually, when I was there the weather was lovely. Now, Paris' just \nsucked- rain practically every day.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth Thomas wrote:\nActually, it was more the attempt to use a 'pseudo-Kantian' \ncategorical principle in order to enact oppressive laws on an ethnic \nminority, i.e. the travelling comminity [1].\n\nBut that'll do equally well. And I can't quite remember its relevancy \nto whatever point I was trying to make at the time anyhow.\n\nHope you liked our lovely weather... :)\n\nIorwerth\n\n\n[1] Not that there isn't a problem; but this isn't the way to solve \nit - and it's largely Howard's fault from when the Tories were in \ncharge anyhow." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: maru " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Incidentally Iowerth, reading the dailies and mags in Britain, I \nthink I figured out what you were referring to;\nyou were referencing the Tories plans to, if they win the 2005 \ngeneral elections (req. since it has been whatever years\nsince the last, and nobody called an election voluntarily) and form a \ngov.'t etc, hold the line on increased public\nspending at least a little. Right?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42532B68.8000404@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "Matt Tillman", "address": "tillmas at verizon.net" }, "date": "2005-04-05T17:19:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<000001c53790$89b5f9b0$6401a8c0@TONYSPC>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An HTML attachment was scrubbed..." } ] }, { "message_id": "<42532C36.1050309@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-05T17:27:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<42532B68.8000404@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matt Tillman wrote:\n\n\nTony Ellis wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere\npreservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's\nmass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still \"No\".\n\nIn the wider context, I don't see why the ability of the Urth to\nproduce, or not to produce, a certain number of humans, should be the\n'essential' question.\n\n'Why did so many innocents have to be sacrificed in the first place?'\nseems a more important question to me.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A question worth asking is whether the population was considered \ninnocent. Not by us mind you, but by the Increate. Remember that the \nantedeluvian world was not innocent, and the best solution at the time \nwas a cleansing of the global palate. Much the same can be said of \nSodom and Gomorrah, where, even today debate rages over the sin that \nwas grounds for their destruction. Even in this case, the sin is \nirrelevant to humanity, it was a sin in the eyes of God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In other words, is the flood of Noah the right analogy?\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<42547D97.9060607@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "Matt Tillman", "address": "tillmas at verizon.net" }, "date": "2005-04-06T17:22:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: Crush on trial", "in_reply_to": "<42532C36.1050309@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "maru wrote:\nMatt Tillman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Tony Ellis wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In the post you're quoting from, the question was whether the mere\npreservation of future generations could be used to justify Severian's\nmass-murder *at all*. To which the answer is still \"No\".\n\nIn the wider context, I don't see why the ability of the Urth to\nproduce, or not to produce, a certain number of humans, should be the\n'essential' question.\n\n'Why did so many innocents have to be sacrificed in the first place?'\nseems a more important question to me.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "A question worth asking is whether the population was considered \ninnocent. Not by us mind you, but by the Increate. Remember that \nthe antedeluvian world was not innocent, and the best solution at the \ntime was a cleansing of the global palate. Much the same can be said \nof Sodom and Gomorrah, where, even today debate rages over the sin \nthat was grounds for their destruction. Even in this case, the sin \nis irrelevant to humanity, it was a sin in the eyes of God." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In other words, is the flood of Noah the right analogy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't presuppose that the analogy to *The Flood* is flawed, as it is \ncertainly an obvious choice, with much the same results. However, in \nthe more cosmic sense, there are some nice parallels to Sodom and \nGomorrah. Remember that in that part of Genesis (which I am certainly \nnot a scholar of), God destroys the sinful cities while he spares the \nrest of humanity (e.g. killing the denizens of Urth but not touching the \nrest of mankind's diaspora). Recall also that the cities were destroyed \nwith a rain of fire and brimstone, perhaps a stretch but that sort of \nsounds like a literal interpretation of \"white fountain\". If someone \ncould look up this verse(G 19:24) in Hebrew that would be wonderful to \nsee what the original wording was prior to the butcherous translation \ninto English.\n\nAlong the lines of something that might just be an absolute coincidence \n(but might not), the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah has always been used to \ncondemn homosexuality, and the first century saw Philo referring to \n\"servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty.\" When I read that on \nWikipedia, it caught my eye because I recalled Severian using that exact \nword in wondering what Baldanders was doing in his castle. Wolfe used \nmany obscure words, but I won't discount this as sure serendipity.\n\nIf we carry this S&G analogy one step further, Severian clearly assumes \nthe role of Lot in the BotNS. He deals with the angels in the same way \n(as agents of God/Increate) and is found to be \"worthy\". While Lot is \nallowed to leave and warned never to look back, Sev is spared and is \ngiven hegemony over the future.\n\nJust a thought, it would not be out of line for Wolfe to throw a curve \nball big enough to flood the world." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4255E8E9.5000408@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-07T19:14:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Utilitarians, Severian, and Consequences", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nMaru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I do find that ghoulish: what if you are *wrong*?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well isn't that just it? In any moral system where you're supposed to \nbe guided by consequences (which you can't know in advance) you \n*always* be wrong. And since results aren't to be judged just on their \nimmediate effects but also on indirect consequences extending \nindefinitely into the future, when can you finally settle and say \n\"that was good\" or \"that was bad\"? G.E. Moore, a rather tough-minded \nutilitarian, took the logical consequences of this and simply extended \nthem - perhaps there never had been, or will be, an action which can \nbe effectively evaluated in terms of its true utility. In the presence \nof doubt, he said, the utilitarian will simply \"do the done thing\", \nthat is, follow the same customary rules of thumb that \nnon-utilitarians use.\n\nThis isn't exactly satisfactory, because at that point there's no \npoint to being a \"utilitarian\". What seems to be needed is some form \nof justification for doing what you *think* will produce the most \nutility, but this is hard for a traditional act utilitarian to accept \nbecause it seems to be rule-based rather than consequence-based. (ie, \nin any given case it's always better to *actually* produce more \nutility than it is to, by rule-following, just *try* to produce more \nutility). It's not impossible to build a system that deals with it, \nbut you would probably find such systems a little more arcane than \nwhat you're thinking of." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Think of all the people you just brutally slaughtered," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This isn't an objection that's really open to the utilitarian, because \nwhile it's true that if you're wrong you've just caused a great deal \nof harm, on the other hand if you abstain from acting and you're wrong \nabout that, you have just condemned an even larger number of people \nwho need transplants to death.\n\nThere is no inherent virtue in refusing to act for a utilitarian; the \nresults of inaction are just as substantial as the results of action. \nBut the next one you mention *is* commonly used:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and of the breakdown in public order that engenders and all the other \nside effects of it... I think it tips the scale towards, y'know, not \ndoing that in real life" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a reasonable objection, although I'd note that if you really \nstart applying this standard, then the utilitarian starts \"doing the \ndone thing\" more and more... utilitarianism becomes less distinct \nbecause its proponent is constrained from actually acting according to \nits dictates.\n\nAlso, it is a bit disconcerting to try and advance any ethic which, if \nit were followed, would cause widespread breakdown of laws and \nconsiderable social harm. Side question: if you could create an \nentirely utilitarian society, what would be its laws? How would \npunishments and rewards be allotted? [I don't think the list would \nappreciate an actual exploration of this question, though.]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "yeah. But of course, such an ideal universe we do not live in, and is \nbut an academic point." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it requires an ideal universe for you to act according to your \nethic, then it's not a very practical ethic.\n\nSeverian's case is interesting in that we're stipulating that he knows \nwith 100% certainty the *immediate* results of his action, and some of \nthe secondary/indirect results. We have somewhat discussed what \nconclusions a person who tried to judge consequences would reach in \nhis position. You have an immediate loss of almost all animal life on \nthe planet, with a later rebirth (and future generations that seem to \nturn out pretty well). If he fails to act then people live out their \nlives for generations, eventually most of those remaining get \nevacuated to other worlds which may or may not be just as good as \nUshas (no basis for comparison here). This calculus, I think, tends to \nweigh heavily against Sev's action *unless* you attach some very heavy \nimportance to \"human life on Ushas\" as opposed to \"human life on any \nother planet\". I think it's reasonable to say that Severian, in some \nslightly confusing way, does count life on Ushas to be somehow more \nsignificant... but I also have the general feeling that Sev *didn't* \nthink it out and weigh the consequences, he just acted decisively." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "We strive for plans maximizing good. Severian's actions, while having \nhorrible intermediate results, results in greater good, both in theory\nand in practice (the Green man remember); we applaude." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Green man, or something as good as the Green Man, could have \narisen elsewhere in one of the other worlds humanity was spread \nacross. But this is pretty much implicit in the above." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Because what you do with things has different moral values depending \non whose you think they are (ex. moving a TV from house to house \ndepends on just who you think owns it, one is helpful and the other \nis theft.). And I'm pretty sure the Autarch is the 'legal' ruler of \nUrth, from all the other planets views anyway. And if the Hierodules \ndidn't think so as well, why would a petty ruler of one little \nkingdom have been chosen as Epitome mm? The Autarch as legitmate \nruler of Urth (but not de facto) was certainly the impression I got. \nAnyone care to weigh in?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think this starts to wade into the more murky, symbolic areas of the \ntext. Taken literally, though, I can't really think of a way in which \nwe would assent that it would be morally laudable for George W. to \nkill us all because he's president. If we imagine him as king, tyrant, \nor whatever else, it doesn't really change our judgment of such an act.\n\nNow if you're saying that if we had been born in such a tyranny we \nmight judge differently, well, perhaps, but perhaps not. Would such a \njudgment be just as valid as the one we make now in our more \n\"enlightened\" age? We're not free to take this out unless we're moral \nrelativists, and that's not a position anyone here has endorsed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We are discussing how Severian feels no problem bringing on the New Sun \n, despite, as another poster put it, considerable pressure not to; I \nsuggested that in addition to the suggestion that Sev is essentially \nduped, he regards himself as the sole legitimate ruler of Urth- he \nrather blatantly makes that clear, both with Typhon, and during UOTNS, \nesp. before the court of Tzadkiel the Just.\nI never said that makes it right.\nAUTARCH: Here I sit as though the lord of a hundred worlds. Yet not \nmaster even of this." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "As a side note with talk of fascism running rampant in the list I \nfind myself reflecting that tyranny and fascism were not aspects \nthat I strongly associated with Autarchy when I first read the \nbooks. My first impression, even at this point, when someone calls \nSeverian \"the Autarch\" is to think: self-ruled, self-ruler. Only by \nextension do I reach an idea of governing others." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"To rule others, first rule yourself\" ?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or perhaps, like Talos's play, Urth is full of just a few people who \nwear different masks and play different roles as their parts \nrequire... then Sev might literally just be ruling himself. But that's \nanother of those murky metaphysical tales." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is a curiousity of the play that it dwells at length on the \nsupplanation of the old by the new, which will be stronger and more \nbeautiful. Perhaps it is merely a conceit of mine, but methinks that is \na rare theme- last I saw it was in Greek myth, and Keats' poetic \ntreatises there of.\nMurkiest in the play is the ending. Severian in UOTNS is not Severian \nin the play- but Nod? Does Jahi mean one of the two sleeping goddesses?\n\n~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4255ED2A.70608@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-07T19:32:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Utilitarians, Severian, and Consequences", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nMaru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I do find that ghoulish: what if you are *wrong*?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well isn't that just it? In any moral system where you're supposed to \nbe guided by consequences (which you can't know in advance) you \n*always* be wrong. And since results aren't to be judged just on their \nimmediate effects but also on indirect consequences extending \nindefinitely into the future, when can you finally settle and say \n\"that was good\" or \"that was bad\"? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Never: but again is this really unique to utilitarianism? Can't you be \nuncertain as to whether you have really fulfilled your duty in a \nduty-based system, or whether you fell into a fiendish trap whose \nappearances tricked you?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "G.E. Moore, a rather tough-minded utilitarian, took the logical \nconsequences of this and simply extended them - perhaps there never \nhad been, or will be, an action which can be effectively evaluated in \nterms of its true utility. In the presence of doubt, he said, the \nutilitarian will simply \"do the done thing\", that is, follow the same \ncustomary rules of thumb that non-utilitarians use." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sounds like a cop-out: Because you can't be perfect and 100%, just do \nwhat everybody else does.\nAs the saying goes, 'No one was ever fired for buying IBM.'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This isn't exactly satisfactory, because at that point there's no \npoint to being a \"utilitarian\". What seems to be needed is some form \nof justification for doing what you *think* will produce the most \nutility, but this is hard for a traditional act utilitarian to accept \nbecause it seems to be rule-based rather than consequence-based. (ie, \nin any given case it's always better to *actually* produce more \nutility than it is to, by rule-following, just *try* to produce more \nutility). It's not impossible to build a system that deals with it, \nbut you would probably find such systems a little more arcane than \nwhat you're thinking of." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If your 'trying' does not do as well as 'actually producing', there is \nsomething more than a little screwed up about your efforts, And how can \nyou 'actually produce' more utility without previously having decided to \ndo what you 'thought' would produce the most utility? Accident?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Think of all the people you just brutally slaughtered," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This isn't an objection that's really open to the utilitarian, because \nwhile it's true that if you're wrong you've just caused a great deal \nof harm, on the other hand if you abstain from acting and you're wrong \nabout that, you have just condemned an even larger number of people \nwho need transplants to death.\n\nThere is no inherent virtue in refusing to act for a utilitarian; the \nresults of inaction are just as substantial as the results of action. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, not unique. 'Sins of omission' &etc" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But the next one you mention *is* commonly used:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and of the breakdown in public order that engenders and all the other \nside effects of it... I think it tips the scale towards, y'know, not \ndoing that in real life" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is a reasonable objection, although I'd note that if you really \nstart applying this standard, then the utilitarian starts \"doing the \ndone thing\" more and more... utilitarianism becomes less distinct \nbecause its proponent is constrained from actually acting according to \nits dictates." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've held that in practice we use triage- like governments prioritizing \naid, seeking the maximum utility for buck. So it is little surprise if \nin our everyday life it changes the actual actions only a little, and \nis more a paradigm shift. It is like replacing Newton's physics with \nEinsteins'- the edge cases vary considerably, but in more mundane \nrealms, they accord pretty closely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, it is a bit disconcerting to try and advance any ethic which, if \nit were followed, would cause widespread breakdown of laws and \nconsiderable social harm. Side question: if you could create an \nentirely utilitarian society, what would be its laws? How would \npunishments and rewards be allotted? [I don't think the list would \nappreciate an actual exploration of this question, though.]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But what ethical system in its gross and naive formulations wouldn't \ncause all that?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "yeah. But of course, such an ideal universe we do not live in, and is \nbut an academic point." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If it requires an ideal universe for you to act according to your \nethic, then it's not a very practical ethic.\n\nSeverian's case is interesting in that we're stipulating that he knows \nwith 100% certainty the *immediate* results of his action, and some of \nthe secondary/indirect results. We have somewhat discussed what \nconclusions a person who tried to judge consequences would reach in \nhis position. You have an immediate loss of almost all animal life" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are we defining animals like God & Noah did?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on the planet, with a later rebirth (and future generations that seem \nto turn out pretty well). If he fails to act then people live out \ntheir lives for generations, eventually most of those remaining get \nevacuated to other worlds which may or may not be just as good as \nUshas (no basis for comparison here). This calculus, I think, tends to \nweigh heavily against Sev's action *unless* you attach some very heavy \nimportance to \"human life on Ushas\" as opposed to \"human life on any \nother planet\". I think it's reasonable to say that Severian, in some \nslightly confusing way, does count life on Ushas to be somehow more \nsignificant... but I also have the general feeling that Sev *didn't* \nthink it out and weigh the consequences, he just acted decisively." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, I've argued elsewhere that a major factor is the loss of Urth as a \nhabitat, which all things equal (and it appears they are; no one says \nthat Ice Urthians will be brought to a new, just as good planet, which \nisn't already colonized.) means a drastic reduction in future numbers of \nhumans." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "We strive for plans maximizing good. Severian's actions, while having \nhorrible intermediate results, results in greater good, both in theory\nand in practice (the Green man remember); we applaude." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Green man, or something as good as the Green Man, could have \narisen elsewhere in one of the other worlds humanity was spread \nacross. But this is pretty much implicit in the above." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4255F0CE.3020208@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-07T19:47:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nTo summarize before trying to answer, what I take it you're asking is \n(shifting the focus from Severian to the Hieros, since on this view \nSeverian is just a tool of the Hieros) whether the Hieros, as higher \nbeings, are above judgment with regard to their plans for Urth. \n(Although to be honest I'm not sure that the Hieros plan for things to \nbe this way, or if they simply accept it as an inevitability and \nwillingly play their roles).\n\nFollowing Aquinas, God is beyond human judgment and the Hieros could \nbe themselves just tools of God, or else beings who operate, like God, \nin a sphere where our judgments are not qualified to reach. \nTheologically speaking once you've taken this first move, of allowing \nthat Sev is really a tool of a higher power with no choice in the \nmatter, you've mooted the whole question before you begin; this way of \nlooking at Sev is not a perspective which allows us to *ask* ethical \nquestions in the first place.\n\nTo move things one step down and more safely answer the direct queries \nhere:\nPersonally I think rights do follow a continuum scale to an extent, \nand I think this accords *generally* with our intuitions in how we \nought to deal with animals and other people in a variety of \ncircumstances. It's certainly arguable, though, so I'm not going to \nclaim my opinion is obviously or self-evidently true.\n\nWhat I can say is that thinking of rights along a continuum scale do \nnot automatically authorize the move you suggest. On a simplistic \nlevel, we can imagine a limited continuum scale on which \"rational \nbeings\" form one endpoint, and insenate matter (rocks, let's say) the \nother; by this scale the Hieros would stand on an equal level with \nhumans, cacogens, etc. And if you don't like rationality as an \nendpoint, others are imaginable (\"moral agents\" perhaps).\n\nBut this is a tricky question because it is very easy to slip back \ntoward the theological standpoint, wholly or partially. For example we \ncould imagine the Hieros having \"super-rational powers\", etc. To this \nend just remember that our ethical judgments are bound to *our* way of \nthinking, what we call rationality, and we can judge things by no \nother standard. What I am calling the \"theological move\" is not a way \nof saying that we *can't* judge godly or super-rational beings on our \nown terms - we can - but it is a normative claim that we *ought not* \ndo so." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just a minor point- Are you sure about that definition of the \n'theological move'? It strikes more as a way to say that godly beings' \nconcerns reach so far beyond ours, in areas beyond our experience, \ndealing with such vast quantities of time/space/creatures/data that our \nintuitions and flawed, merely human logic is essentially guaranteed to \nbe wrong, simply because we lack the necessary data or heuristics. \nWhich is not a normative claim, but more a pratical one, like a monkey \ntrying to understand calculus, 'don't even bother trying'. Personally, \nI see little of the normative claim in UOTNS- things *are* explained and \njustified, if not well or completely, and the Hs do not act utterly \nsuperior; they go so far as to repeatedly test Autarchs and get some \nsemblance of permission from Urthians (the battle), so they definitely \ndon't believe in the normative claim, and if the Hs don't accept it, who \ncould have the right? The Increate? But the Increate never intervenes." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And, yes, if we make such a move then we will end up exempting \nSeverian from judgment; this was one of my original points in the post \nabout judging Severian. But if so we should be aware that this is what \nwe are doing, and try to reach an understanding of why we're doing it, \nhow we got to this point of view." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "~Maru" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2005-04-07T23:59:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<4255F0CE.3020208@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, maru wrote:\nChris wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To summarize before trying to answer, what I take it you're asking is \n(shifting the focus from Severian to the Hieros, since on this view \nSeverian is just a tool of the Hieros) whether the Hieros, as higher \nbeings, are above judgment with regard to their plans for Urth. (Although \nto be honest I'm not sure that the Hieros plan for things to be this way, \nor if they simply accept it as an inevitability and willingly play their \nroles).\n\nFollowing Aquinas, God is beyond human judgment and the Hieros could be \nthemselves just tools of God, or else beings who operate, like God, in a \nsphere where our judgments are not qualified to reach. Theologically \nspeaking once you've taken this first move, of allowing that Sev is really \na tool of a higher power with no choice in the matter, you've mooted the \nwhole question before you begin; this way of looking at Sev is not a \nperspective which allows us to *ask* ethical questions in the first place." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "... Personally, I see little of the normative claim in UOTNS- \nthings *are* explained and justified, if not well or completely, and the Hs \ndo not act utterly superior; they go so far as to repeatedly test Autarchs \nand get some semblance of permission from Urthians (the battle), so they \ndefinitely don't believe in the normative claim, and if the Hs don't accept \nit, who could have the right? The Increate? But the Increate never \nintervenes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In _Soldier_, Short Sun and Wizard-Knight, Wolfe spends a bit of time on \njudgement by humans of gods. The Giants-proper (not the little ones ;)) \nare of Skai, and as such should be respected, but not admired or \nworshipped; Loki is more ambiguous. And on multiple occasions, we hear \nthe argument about demons taking over the role of God becoming \nindistinguishable from the real thing (cf _The Day after Judgement_). And \nthe real thing (righteous authority deriving ultimately from the Increate) \nis recognizable, presumably using ethical criteria.\n\nAfter saying that, Wolfe's worlds are all high mortality settings: not a\nlot of happy immortal uploads here ;). To a medieval Christian viewpoint,\nand perhaps to the Hieros, death and suffering are ubiquitous, *mysterious*,\nnecessary waystations on the infinite journey. The offering up of\nsuffering to the Increate comment by Apheta comes right out of tradition.\n\nDavid Duffy." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "| David Duffy (MBBS PhD) ,-_|\\\n| email: david.Duffy at qimr.edu.au ph: INT+61+7+3362-0217 fax: -0101 / *\n| Genetic Epidemiology Lab, Queensland Institute of Medical Research \\_,-._/\n| 300 Herston Rd, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia GPG 4D0B994A v" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-09T15:25:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Utilitarians, Severian, and Consequences", "in_reply_to": "<4255ED2A.70608@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Never: but again is this really unique to utilitarianism? Can't you be \nuncertain as to whether you have really fulfilled your duty in a duty-based \nsystem, or whether you fell into a fiendish trap whose appearances tricked \nyou?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The error I think you make in the above is that you are thinking of duty in \na consequentialist framework - that duty is somehow objectively fulfilled by \na set of consequences that result from the action. But deontological ethical \nsystems precisely do *not* work this way. (You're not alone in this by the \nway; Nagel makes almost exactly the same mistake in his critique of Kant in \n\"Moral Luck\").\n\nIn a duty-based system, you are following a rule based on the input you \nhave; you can have doubts as to the verity of that input, but ultimately you \ndo know when you've followed the rule as well as you are able. You know, for \nexample, as you speak that you are trying to follow the rules of language, \nand you can \"know\" (as well as you \"know\" anything) that you've followed \nthem correctly. Sure, you can introduce radical skeptical doubt, evil \ndemons, and the like. But that kind of skepticism is just that: radical. If \nyou take it too seriously, then you end up conceding that we're not really \ncommunicating with each other at all because such communication is \nimpossible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sounds like a cop-out: Because you can't be perfect and 100%, just do what \neverybody else does.\nAs the saying goes, 'No one was ever fired for buying IBM.'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It pretty much does sound like a cop-out, just throwing your hands up in the \nair. But you have to understand that Moore is not taking it lightly. It's \nnot just a matter of your knowledge being imperfect - it's that you have *no \nbasis at all* from which to judge the probabilities of the ultimate results \n(extended off indefinitely into the future) of your actions.\n\nThe pragmatic way out, from your standpoint (and this hits on something \nyou've talked about in a couple other posts, so I skipped responding to \nthose and just made the point here) is to use something of a \"discount \nfunction\". A present good is always better than an equal good in the future, \nbecause contingent circumstances beyond your control might come up to \nprevent you from attaining that future good. Beyond a certain point in time \nthe probabilities become so uncertain that you then discount any \nconsequences beyond that point entirely because you're unable to weigh them. \n[I am not a utilitarian, but if I were, this is how I'd try to deal with the \nproblem.]\n\nMost of our actions have pretty short horizons in this regard. We live in a \nvery, very contingent world. Severian's case is interestingly different (to \nbring this back around to his case) because he's been told, to some extent, \nwhat the results of his actions are going to be. So to judge him in \nconsequentialist terms, where do we draw the horizon? Well, you could make \nan argument that it would be as far forward as the Green Man's time. I don't \nthink this is practical, though, because while the Green Man's time is a \nvery good period, it may have been preceded by some pretty awful times, and \ngoing forward from the Green Man's time may be a pretty terrible future. \n[You could argue that the entirety of the future history of man is cyclical \nand predetermined, but while this would give Severian a broader horizon of \nknowledge, it would also end up making Severian's *choice* predetermined \ntoo, and so not really a choice at all. This means you don't end up judging \nSeverian by consequences, you end up exempting him from judgment entirely as \na mere tool, as described in my original post on this.]\n\nI think that, in the frozen-Urth future, the horizon extends basically to \nAsh's time. The outcome there is that a lot of people live diminished (but \ncertainly not entirely unhappy) lives for a long time [a substantial \npositive value], followed by evacuation of *most of* the population to other \nworlds [also a positive], along with a minority who eventually perish on \nUrth [a small negative].\n\nOn the Ushas side, you start with an extremely large negative, a lot of \ndeaths. It's unclear where to draw the horizon here, but considering the \nsmall number of survivors (who will generate only the tiniest amount of \nutility in a given generation) we can assume that it would take a very long \ntime to repopulate Ushas back to the point where it was producing enough \npositive outcome to outweigh the negative balance you start with. Even if \nyou eventually break even, the frozen-Urth branch has been racking up \nutility the entire time; and if a substantial number of people were \nevacuated, their sheer population alone would make it very difficult for the \nUshas branch to catch up. Ultimately I think that it would take far too long \nfor the Ushas future to catch up, even assuming that it could catch up; \ndrawing the horizon so far out gets into territory where it's very unlikely \nthat Severian can judge probabilities.\n\nAnd so I think that even a strict consequentialist (which, granted, I am \nnot) would not find reason for approval without some *other*, additional \nfactor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, I've argued elsewhere that a major factor is the loss of Urth as a \nhabitat, which all things equal (and it appears they are; no one says that \nIce Urthians will be brought to a new, just as good planet, which isn't \nalready colonized.) means a drastic reduction in future numbers of humans." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It doesn't mean this at all. It doesn't seem likely that the limiting factor \nfor human populations in Urth's future will be the sheer number of planets \navailable as habitats. Terraforming seems far from impossible (see: the \ngreen Moon). So if one more world is needed it would seem better to \nterraform one without people already on it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If your 'trying' does not do as well as 'actually producing', there is \nsomething more than a little screwed up about your efforts, And how can \nyou 'actually produce' more utility without previously having decided to do \nwhat you 'thought' would produce the most utility? Accident?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure. Even the slightest bit of bad luck. Or, alternately, if you chose a \nsuboptimal path and got a little lucky you could easily come out better. \nAction *outcomes* involve a considerable luck factor. Any system that relies \non consequences to judge actions has to either find a way to disregard the \nluck factor, or else embrace the idea that it is better to be lucky than \nwell-intentioned - in fact, it's hard to find any room for crediting \nintentions at all, if they don't end up producing the right results.\n\nEven JS Mill acknowledged that this was a problem. His answer was to make a \nsort of distinction between \"motive\" and \"intention\"; so he was able to say \nthat a Utilitarian ignores \"motives\" in moral judgment, but not \n\"intentions\". Unfortunately his distinction ends up being a little too \nslippery to provide an adequate answer." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This isn't an objection that's really open to the utilitarian, because \nwhile it's true that if you're wrong you've just caused a great deal of \nharm, on the other hand if you abstain from acting and you're wrong about \nthat, you have just condemned an even larger number of people who need \ntransplants to death.\n\nThere is no inherent virtue in refusing to act for a utilitarian; the \nresults of inaction are just as substantial as the results of action." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, not unique. 'Sins of omission' &etc" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am not the one who tried to use \"But what if you're wrong?\" as an \nobjection; you basically implied that you wouldn't hack up the homeless \npeople, despite this being what your ethical system seems to require, on the \ngrounds that you might be wrong and if so, better to not do it. The point \nhere is just to show that for a committed utilitarian this is not an \nallowable excuse.\n\nThe deontological ethicist won't hack up the homeless for organs because she \nfollows rules which respect the rights of individuals. She does not need to \nappeal to uncertainty about the outcome." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've held that in practice we use triage- like governments prioritizing \naid, seeking the maximum utility for buck. So it is little surprise if in \nour everyday life it changes the actual actions only a little, and is more \na paradigm shift. It is like replacing Newton's physics with Einsteins'- \nthe edge cases vary considerably, but in more mundane realms, they accord \npretty closely." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, it's an interesting concept that has been argued, that collective \nactions (the actions of organizations, governments, etc) would be best ruled \nby a utilitarian standard, while individual actions continue to be governed \nby rules. Utilitarian ethics for governments, deontological ethics for \npeople. I don't really have a position on that. I gather that you wouldn't \naccept it, though, because it would imply that you personally shouldn't try \nto be a utilitarian." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-10T02:08:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) All is Shadow and dust", "in_reply_to": "<4255F0CE.3020208@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maru said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Just a minor point- Are you sure about that definition of the 'theological \nmove'?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "human logic is essentially guaranteed to be wrong, simply because we lack \nthe necessary data or heuristics. Which is not a normative claim, but more \na pratical one, like a monkey trying to understand calculus, 'don't even \nbother trying'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, yes, more or less. I think you have the idea here - 'don't even bother \ntrying' being normative, not descriptive.\n\nTo put it in context, the whole reason Aquinas was addressing this subject \nwas the \"Problem of Evil\", ie \"If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, how \ncould he be good and still allow evil in the world?\" Aquinas is pointing out \nthat when you ask that question, you're presuming to judge God (and so it's \nobviously not *impossible* to judge God). But the inadequacy of your \nknowledge and reason in this case give you no way of knowing what would be \nan accurate judgment for a being like God. As such he can't try to *answer* \nthe question without making the same mistake, so he points out that we \nshouldn't ask it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "if not well or completely, and the Hs do not act utterly superior; they go \nso far as to repeatedly test Autarchs and get some semblance of permission \nfrom Urthians (the battle), so they definitely don't believe in the \nnormative claim, and if the Hs don't accept it, who could have the right? \nThe Increate? But the Increate never intervenes." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If I remember correctly I wasn't suggesting that the Hierogrammates make \nsuch a claim. I was saying that it was one reason a person might give for \nwhy they don't judge Severian harshly.\n\nThe way you're interpreting the battle as a sort of \"consent test\" for the \npopulation of Urth is possible, I suppose, but I don't know that it's to be \ntaken for granted. There is something a little paradoxical about the trial \non almost any explanation of it." } ] } ] }