Jaan preaches:
"'You await rescue, first from the grip of the tyrant, next and foremost from the grip of mortality - of being merely, emptily human. You wait for transcendence.'" (p. 150)
I buy the universality, although not the particularity, of Jaan's message. We need to transform society - "the tyrant" - and ourselves - transcendence. Although:
we have to accept mortality;
humanity can feel, but is not, empty;
the Elders will not return to rescue us.
Bearing in mind these disagreements, I could have an interesting conversation with Jaan. However, the problem is not Jaan but Aycharaych diabolically manipulating him.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't buy anything Jaan says, both about the so called "tyrant" and what he calls "transcendence.' All we can hope for, in this world, before the coming again of Christ, are societies not too terribly bad.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We can certainly hope for and build toward a lot more.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm a Burkean conservative, meaning I believe in realistic hopes and goals. With no illusions about human beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As ever, you state the case as if it were a foregone conclusion that you are right. I have realistic hopes and goals without illusions.
Paul.
But the manipuation requires a deep understanding of human social dynamics and the role of mythology in human culture.l
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Because the actual evidence, the hard facts of real history and life, supports my argument, not yours. And that was Anderson's view as well, even tho' he sometimes took a look at ideas of humans "transcending" themselves.
Mr. Stirling: I agree, and we see mention of Aycharaych carefully studying the human race and its history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Why go on about this? The actual evidence, the hard facts of real history and life, support my argument, not yours. I disagree with you and Anderson. Evolution and history show profound changes. It is impossible that fundamental changes will now suddenly cease to happen for the rest of time. But why go on about it? This exchange will literally continue forever if you keep saying, "The actual evidence, the hard facts of real history..." etc. What has happened is not what can happen or what will happen. If that were true, then inanimate matter would not have become organisms, organisms would not have become conscious, pre-human apes would not have become rational, self-conscious, linguistic human beings, society would not have been revolutionized and transformed as often as it has. But why keep repeating all this? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there is a fundamental and unreconciled disagreement here but that is what human discourse is like.
Paul.
Sean,
Of course you do not agree with anything that is said on the opposite side of an argument. Of course. But you also seem not to remember what has been said. Therefore, it is repeated.
Post a Comment