See
Why A Hereafter? and its combox, particularly the mentions of an "eternal now." I referred to a "sub/trans" distinction although the phrase that I was trying to remember was "pre/trans." See
The Gwydiona Experience and its link to
The Pre/Trans Fallacy. I think that Ken Wilber and CS Lewis clarified an important distinction and that Poul Anderson's
The Night Face shows us an entire population mistaking a sub-rational experience for a trans-rational one. (Insanity cannot be described as "pre-" so it must be "sub-"?)
In Anderson's
Brain Wave (London, 1977)
, global human rationality is enhanced and the conspirators who try to restore the lower IQ level include a Hindu who says that he wants to regain his "'...feeble glimpse of the ultimate...'" (Chapter 20, p. 173) but is accused instead of wanting to regain his fetalizing trance. Thus, he is accused of confusing pre- with trans-. However, other works by Anderson acknowledge the possibility of transcendent experience.
Onward, Earthlings!
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
What happened to the unlucky people of Gwydiona in THE NIGHT FACE was certainly pathetic, gruesome and tragic! I'm not surprised access to the planet was interdicted or prohibited (as seen mentioned in "The Sharing Of Flesh"). I don't know what COULD be done for a whole planetary population genetically compelled to go mad when a certain plant flowers). I don't think something so simplistic as trying to wipe out that plant would work.
Sean
The increase in intelligence in BRAIN WAVE is orders of magnitude greater than the variation in natural human abilities, which is what makes it still work for me.
On a human scale, raw brainpower doesn't make people more rational; it makes them better at rationalizing.
This is because reason is a tool, a means, not an end. The ends we use it for are not determined by reason; there's no purely logical reason to do anything, including continuing to live.
Reason is a very powerful too, of course.
For example, stupid sociopaths tend to end up dead or in prison fairly early in their lives.
Really intelligent ones often do quite well -- because they can learn to mimic normal human responses, as a form of protective coloration, simply by observing that it's necessary for their own purposes and interests.
Mr Stirling,
OK. Someone who is rational will think rationally instead of irrationally but will still have non-rational motivations. Thus, wanting to holiday in a particular country is non-rational. Heeding a warning that that country is currently dangerous for visitors because of civil unrest is rational. Disregarding warnings is irrational.
Paul.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Mr. Stirling: Yes, your comments does clarify something I should have thought of: a mere increase in "raw intelligence" will NOT necessarily make people better or more TRULY rational. Just better at rationalizing.
And I agree with what you said about dumb and smart sociopaths. One of the most ALARMING books I've ever read was Taylor Caldwell's WICKED ANGEL, about a young sociopath. She certainly painted a disturbingly convincing picture of how a sociopath thought and acted. I recall the advice given to the father of such a person that the best he could do was train his monstrous son "to mimic normal human responses," to limit the harm he would do.
I do have one quibble I would make about Anderson's BRAIN WAVE. I thought the idea of intelligence on Earth massively jumping merely because of the planet moving out of some kind of "inhibiting field" a strain to accept, once I stopped to think about it. I think Anderson came to think so as well, because I don't think he ever used similar concepts in his later works. But, this flaw was in a very early story by PA, when he was still learning how to write in some ways.
Sean
Post a Comment