The Theontologists have come to believe that the Sigman, an alien from Sigma Draconis, is "...a direct manifestation of God..." (I, p. 8) They chant, dance, kneel and prostrate when the Sigman's ship rises:
"Hail...Ave...Om..." (ibid.) etc.
The Chinese and Americans try to gain a military advantage from their contacts with the Sigman. As one part of this endeavour, they try to keep the science secret. (Bad idea. Read James Blish's They Shall Have Stars where every new discovery is automatically labelled secret.) The Chinese even try to have the American expert, Yvonne, assassinated. Such short termism! The whole of humanity stands to gain yet their response is try to kill the woman who has made the breakthrough in Sigman communication.
Skip cuts short a just-commenced relationship and travels across the US, seeking contact with the President or someone else highly placed. He has an idea about the Sigman but, in order to do anything about his idea, he must first deal with his fellow human beings.
In Anderson's "A Chapter of Revelation," there is not an alien visitation but a literal miracle yet still lobbyists and interest groups try to use even a miraculous event not to learn the Message but to push their own preconceived messages. We imagine God asking Himself, "Why do I bother?" But do we agree that this is how humanity would respond to an extra-terrestrial visitation or to a supernatural revelation?
26 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The Theontologists remind me of the UFO religions seen in "Peek! I See You!" Or the Merseian Star Believers in "Day of Burning."
Of course human beings and nations will try to get an advantage if any non-human like the Sigman came to Earth for real.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Our present armed nation-states will certainly try to get an advantage. We need scientists and workers at every level throughout the world to implement the Lancaster University motto: "Patet veritas omnibus." (Truth lies open to all.)
Paul.
The problem is that if you don't take care of the short term, there -is- no long term, not for you personally or your tribe.
Eg., China is currently run by a (literally) genocidal maniac. Would you like Xi to have super-powerful alien technology?
Certainly not him. Not Trump or Biden either. This world is not ready for super-powerful alien tech in the hands of any one government.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: The only alternative to armed nation states is one armed state ruling Earth. Like it or not we have armed states because they fill a real need: an institution monopolizing violence and keeping the peace internally. And defending against outside aggression.
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! I don't want despots like Xi, Putin, or the Hamas scum getting their hands on advanced alien tech. Too bad "Josip" obviously has no idea what to do in the here and now.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul,
I know states serve a purpose but I think we can go beyond them but we have discussed all this before.
I don't want any present rulers getting advanced alien tech. I think we should drop the word "scum" in political discourse.
Paul.
I have addressed myself here.
Kaor, Paul!
Where we differ is that I don't believe the human race can or will "go beyond" the need for states. Nothing I've read or seen makes me think that is possible.
Hamas deserves nothing but the scorn and loathing of all decent people.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we can look to potentials beyond what we have read and seen but I have articulated this before.
The term "scum" is unacceptable.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Scientific and technological potentials are possible. I'm far more skeptical about social/political potentials.
All terrorists deserve such terms, no matter what their "causes" are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
They do not. Some of us regard the Zionist state as terrorist but it would not help anyone if I added the word, "scum," every time I referred to the IDF.
You are sceptical. I agree that you are.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I do not agree founders of Israel like David ben Gurion were terrorists.
I will never have anything but fury and contempt for the Hamas criminals!
I believe the actual facts of life and history vindicates my skepticism about the kind of human transformation you hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Under Ben-Gurion's leadership, the 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw the uniting of the various Jewish militias into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the expulsion and flight of a majority of the Palestinian Arab population.
-from the Wikipedia article on Ben-Gurion.
The actual facts of life and history do not put limits on what can happen in the future. On the contrary, they show that things change.
Paul.
Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote that the idea of expulsion of Palestinian Arabs was endorsed in practice by mainstream Zionist leaders, particularly Ben-Gurion. He did not give clear or written orders in that regard, but Morris claims that Ben-Gurion's subordinates understood his policy well:[69]
-from Wikipedia.
Nahum Goldmann criticised Ben-Gurion for what he viewed as a confrontational approach to the Arab world. Goldmann wrote, "Ben-Gurion is the man principally responsible for the anti-Arab policy, because it was he who molded the thinking of generations of Israelis."[73] Simha Flapan quoted Ben-Gurion as stating in 1938: "I believe in our power, in our power which will grow, and if it will grow agreement will come..."[74]
Goldmann reported that Ben Gurion had told him in private in 1956:[75]
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
-From Wikipedia.
"...we have come here and stolen their country."
In April of 1948, Lehi and the Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin of at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine.[26] On 29 May 1948, the government of Israel, having inducted its activist members into the Israel Defense Forces, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later,[27] an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[28] After the assassination, the new Israeli government declared Lehi a terrorist organization, arresting some 200 members and convicting some of the leaders.[29] Just before the first Israeli elections in January 1949, a general amnesty to Lehi members was granted by the government.[29] In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration, an "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel", the Lehi ribbon.[30] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.
-Wiki article on Lehi.
Kaor, Paul!
And since the Arabs had made it plain they would never agree to Israel existing, that kind of expulsion or separating was inevitable. You persist in ignoring how brutally antisemitic so many Muslims are.
I've never seen any Arab regimes giving even the kind of relatively token punishment given by Israel to the Irgun gang to Jew hating Muslims. The worst members of the Irgun should have been tried, convicted, and shot.
And, yes, it was wrong that Count Bernadotte was assassinated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not ignore Muslim anti-Semitism. The present issue is mass destruction and death perpetrated by Israel. We should be able to say that without the issue of anti-Semitism being brought up. Expulsion was not inevitable. A state serving the interests of one race as against another should not have been set up in the first place.
My issue is not between the Israeli and the Arab governments but between any such governments and the populations that they variously expel, separate and repress.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not going to agree. Israel had every right to strike back at the Hamas criminals, who had been misruling the Gaza Strip for 17 years. Hamas started the war and Hamas is responsible for its consequences.
More and more I believe Stirling to be right: sometimes the least bad solution is to rigorously separate implacably hostile peoples. Egypt and Saudi Arabia should take in the Gazans.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How did Hamas misrule Gaza? I am not talking about responding to an attack but about destroying the whole area. Each of us is responsible for what we do. If my neighbour attacks me, then I am responsible if I attack his wife and children.
People are not implacably hostile. If they have been made hostile in this instance by the UK and the US backing and arming their watchdog state in the Middle East, just as the British divided and ruled the population in Northern Ireland.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree. If, in legitimately defending yourself you unintentionally kill your attacker's wife/children, that would be tragic but not blameworthy, simply a consequence of defending yourself. Your attacker is responsible for their deaths, not you.
Disagree, for whatever reason some peoples are implacably hostile. Need I remind you of things like the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks, who massacred upwards of two millions?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. The IDF is not unintentionally slaughtering Gazans. You said it was necessary to destroy cities!
Disagree. You need not remind me of any genocides. Of course people are not implacably hostile. They are made hostile by social conditions and cynically manipulated divisions which can be challenged and changed.
Paul.
Have you all seen this commentary on the dispute over that territory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree Israel is being indiscriminate. If that had been so, hundreds of thousands would have died!
Yes, destroyed. You persist in thinking a mere police would have taken care of the Hamas criminals. And don't forget the 100s of miles of tunnels dug by Hamas under Gaza! Those tunnels could not be destroyed by gentle means.
Jim: No, I've not seen that video.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Destroy cities? We part company. Why did Hamas dig tunnels and resist Israel if living conditions had not been made unbearable in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? If we analyse the problem in the middle of a conflict instead of from the beginning, then we do not get helpful answers.
Paul.
Post a Comment