Sunday, 20 October 2024

Media II

My brain moves slowly while I am laid up with a cold. Also, I have been made aware of on-line alternative media and commentaries which are like a spectrum of alternative histories. We have to make our own judgment as to which of these alternative narratives is closest to or furthest from the truth. They challenge the pretensions of the BBC which most definitely lacks a monopoly on truth.

James Blish wrote that historical fiction is a natural alternative medium for sf writers. Both deal with periods other than that of the author and his audience. Both Blish and Anderson wrote historical fiction as well as sf although Anderson was considerably more prolific. But history plays a major part in Anderson's sf. Time travellers, immortals and even extraterrestrials move around in Earth's past. Future histories involve historical processes which can repeat or diverge from those of the past. The Psychotechnic History begins with the assassination of a potential Marius. There are also alternative histories which can be either fantastic (gods exist and magic works) or realistic (the scientific revolution never happened).

We imagine populations in Anderson's Psychotechnic and Technic Histories doing what we do: studying their pasts and accessing both mainstream and alternative media accounts of their presents. The Merseian Roidhunate tries to spread disinformation on Terra.

17 comments:

Stephen Michael Stirling said...

As a certain philosopher noted, there are no facts -- only -interpretations- of fact.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

I don't quite agree with that way of putting it. If there were no data, nothing whatever presented to us, then there would be nothing to interpret.

Have I related this before? Walking between buildings at work, I glanced back and saw a colleague lying on his back on the ground, an unusual posture. I instantly interpreted what I saw. He was lying near a parked vehicle with one arm pointing toward it. I thought, "George has dropped a coin or other small object which has rolled under the vehicle and he is retrieving it." I looked away and would immediately have forgotten this incident except that I was shortly afterward informed that I had just missed seeing another man punch George on the jaw and lay him out. It is easy to differentiate between what I saw (George on his back) and my (mis)interpretation (dropped coin etc). Except that, of course, I have unconsciously interpreted sense data in order to be able to recognize George, the ground, the nearby vehicle etc. What did I most basically see? Some shapes, colours and spatial relationships and even those I can describe only because I have words for them. But I was still in a different position from a man with no visual presentations.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr Stirling!

Alexander Solzhenitsyn planned and wrote in part a series of linked historical novels forming THE RED WHEEL, which he hoped to extend from 1914-1922. But death took him before he could complete it. I've read AUGUST 1914, NOVEMBER 1916, and the first three volumes of MARCH 1917. After volume 4 of MARCH there's two volumes of APRIL 1917.

I think Solzhenitsyn would agree with you about how there is only "interpretations" of facts. He mercilessly analyzes the facts of what happened in 1917 to show what a catastrophe the Russian Revolution was and how false were the interpretations of its defenders.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

And there are many other interpretations of that event.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And many of them shown to be false and hence discredited. Esp. after THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO tore away the last blood soaked rags of a pretense to legitimacy it had.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

This is just one-sided partisan argument, not discussion. You know that there are informed people who think otherwise. Twice at last in the combox for this blog, I have explained what I understand what went wrong in Russia and I am not going to go through it again.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Because there is no defending monsters like Lenin, his fanaticism, cruelty, cynicism, the Red Terror, or the Gulags that he authorized and began.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

This is a one-sided rant! There is some defending of what workers' organizations tried to do when they deposed the Provisional Government. Of course no discussion is possible if you just list negative terms like that.

It should be obvious why I don't want to go through it again and it is not because I accept every negative term that you apply to the Revolution and know I can't defend it but somehow want to defend it or cover up for it nevertheless. Why would I do that?

You see nothing positive in any revolutionary movement. Many people recognize that Marx set out to formulate a philosophy of liberation although this certainly does not commit anyone to defending any and every regime that later labelled itself "Marxist." You believe (I think) that Marx himself was a totalitarian from the outset. Of course discussion and even mutual comprehension are impossible on that basis.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I don't think Marx set out to be knowingly totalitarian, but that's exactly what
happened with every single Marxist regime. You should ask yourself what it is in Marxism that's so easily used for tyranny.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Every single so-called "Marxist" regime! I have asked myself that and come up with different answers. Any idea that offers hope can be misused by a regime.

My reason for bringing up Marx was just to clarify whether your disagreement with revolutions went all the way back to thinking that Marx intended tyranny. If you do not think that, then that point at least has been clarified. Is it possible sometimes just to discuss the matter instead of making across the board argumentative points all the time?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I've never said Marx desired or intended tyranny. I do believe his failed ideology contains within itself ideas or "seeds" easily used for tyranny.

I repeat, every single Marxist "experiment" has been nothing but tyrannical. I believe it's fair to ask of people who think as you do why that has been the case? What is it in Marxism that makes it so easily used as an instrument of tyranny? If that is so shouldn't that shake your faith in Marxism?

It's not enough to say any system of ideas can be misused by any gov't. The fact free enterprise economics has been successfuly tried by many nations with bad or good gov'ts shows, to me, it can work, given some minimally acceptable conditions. That has not been the case at all with any Marxist ruled nation. All of them, from the USSR, to Enver Hoxha's Albania to the lunatic Kim regime in N Korea, have failed to achieve what Marxism claimed they would.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Can we discuss the issues without a massive either-or argument?

I repeat (we are again repeating ourselves): every single so-called Marxist experiment has not been a Marxist experiment. That ideology has not failed yet. You need to keep saying that it has. What are these seeds easily used for tyranny?

It is enough for me to say that any ideas can be misused. Free enterprise has worked but will be made redundant by advancing technology. Marxism did not claim that lunatics like Kim would achieve anything. Those are not Marxist ruled nations that you listed. "Marxist ruled" is a contradiction. If we are talking about a philosophy of collective self-emancipation, then we are not talking about the imposition of rule by dictators and lunatics. I didn't want to get drawn into all this again but it is very difficult to keep out of it. My only immediate purpose was to clear up whether it was thought that Mark was consciously totalitarian from the beginning.

Paul.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

These arguments have been rehearsed so often that I can anticipate the next move but let's wait to see how it pans out.

Stephen Michael Stirling said...

Paul: oh, there's data -- but data don't become 'facts' (that is, have a human meaning) without interpretation.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

I buy the distinction between data and facts. Data are my visual and other sensory impressions. The fact was George lying on the ground.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

From Sean M. Brooks:

Kaor, Paul!

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree, as regards "interpretations."

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I don't think we are trying to agree.

Paul.