Despite the biological differences and spatiotemporal distance between Terrestrials and Tahirians, they follow the same sociological trajectory. On Earth, both artists and scientists play variations on canonical themes. We are again assured that:
"No one lifetime sufficed to exhaust that heritage." (p. 460)
- the heritage being "...the accumulated works of the ages...," (ibid.) ardorously explored and re-enacted.
No one lifetime suffices in the sense that scholars of past ages have a lifetime task but that should include reinterpreting ancient works in the light of more recent discoveries: the old made new, not the old endlessly reiterated.
"'We of Earth today seek what we may find in ourselves,' [Varday] told [Nansen]. 'You seek elsewhere, outward.'
"Did her voice tremble the least bit?" (ibid.)
Of course her voice trembled because the author is setting up a simplistic antithesis: seek inward or outward? Surely a rich civilization does both - and synthesizes.
Is it Jack Havig in the same author's There Will Be Time who says that what is outside our heads is much greater than what is inside? I could look it up but I should be able to call on the blog readers of Poul Anderson fandom for answers.
Of course what is outside is greater but we also need to know what is within without becoming introverted. Know thyself. Brahman is Atman. Outer and inner are one.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Christianity is wiser, the ultimate meaning to be found in life/existence is not to be found in the passive inwardness of Seladorianism/Hinduism, but outwards to God. And I believe that in turn stimulates the mentality needed by scientists for finding out more about the universe.
Again, I agree more with Anderson than with the dead end of Hinduism.
Ad astra! Sean
I agree with materialist philosophy and Zen meditation.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, we know that! Do you understand materialism?
Paul.
Sean,
Christianity is not wise. It centrally incorporates the barbaric idea of blood sacrifice. If you had not been brought up in a tradition that told you to accept that idea and not to question it, would you have seen any reason to adopt the idea?
Your triumphalist dismissal of all other traditions is inappropriate. Now that we have access to the translated texts of every tradition, we can adapt aspects of different traditions. If I quote a Hindu text, that does not mean that I accept the whole of Hinduism lock, stock and barrel. You accept the whole of Catholicism so you think that I must be accepting the whole of some other tradition that I quote. If I cite what I regard as a positive aspect of Hinduism, then I do not need to be reminded of what I acknowledge are its negative aspects. These discussions are marred by continual misunderstandings like that.
Paul.
I think it was Havig. And yeah, that's true. I've never regarded navel-gazing -per se- as very productive.
Navel-gazing bad. Self-knowledge, awareness of thought processes good - especially since the only alternative is surely ignorance or delusions about the self.
Kaor, Paul!
I reject materialism because it does not and cannot explain everything. I disbelieve in a philosophy denying even the possibility of God existing and that He can respect the laws of nature and act thru secondary causes like evolution.
The three most awesome, even terrifying events that has ever happened were the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. You can think as you like about that "barbaric" idea of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, but I am not going to agree with you. The infinitely transcendent God and Creator of the cosmos truly showed His love for mankind by becoming Man for our salvation.
Compared to what I wrote above Hinduism is nothing. Moreover, like it or not, some "traditions" are going to be bad or gravely flawed.
Setting aside things like its superstitions, callousness, cruelties, or even its philosophy, there's another reason I am not interested in Hinduism, one that needs to be made explicit. Hinduism has never brought about a "paradigm shift," something so radically new that it changes the direction taken by the entire human race. Christianity, along with other factors, alone has done that. A true science only arose in the Western civilization shaped by Christianity. Moreover, ideas about law, liberty, the limited state, etc., only really became firmly rooted because of Christianity and Western civilization. Again, compared to all that, Hinduism compares very poorly.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what is materialism?
Paul.
I think not what I like but what I think the evidence supports. A deity who requires a human sacrifice?
Many traditions are bad or gravely flawed. We differ about which ones.
In Hinduism, I like parts of Krishna's teaching in the Gita but not casteism.
Again, I am not defending Hinduism as a whole but you continue to argue against it as a whole. We do not meet but talk past each other.
Materialism is not the belief that only mechanically interacting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume exist. That would be one version of materialism but clearly an erroneous one.
No one can explain everything. Scientists explain an event as an instance of a law. They explain a law as an instance of a more general law. They cannot explain the most general laws. They observe only a finite number of phenomena in what looks like an infinite reality.
Dialectical materialists recognize that opposites interact, that quantitative changes become qualitative, that new qualities emerge and that emergent qualities include consciousness. Thus, materialism explains consciousness.
Naturally selected organismic sensitivity to environment alterations quantitatively increased until it was qualitatively transformed into conscious sensation. That is as good an explanation of the emergence of consciousness as I can think of.
Kaor, Paul!
You only have the arguments of writers who disbelieve in Christianity as regards the sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross.
Fair enough, you are free pick the the bits of Hinduism you like while acknowledging its callousness and cruelties. The Catholic Church does not deny even the most erroneous faiths can have some truth in them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not understand your first sentence.
"...writers who disbelieve in Christianity..." Sure. Are we all supposed to believe in it from the outset?
Theism should not be a premise. It needs to be argued for.
Atheism is a conclusion, not a premise.
An argument that starts from philosophical analysis of empirical observations and proceeds to conclusions derived from such analysis and observations need not refer to "God." We do not start by ruling out God from the beginning. We just do not refer to God in the first place. Someone else has to explain to us why they think that God should be brought into it.
The onus of proof is on someone who makes a positive statement. There is no onus of disproof on anyone who does not accept the statement. This is a very basic logical point that gets lost. People think that they can start with "God" and challenge sceptics to disprove it.
Paul.
Sean,
I suspect that you think that anyone who disbelieves in Christianity must be so uninformed about it that he cannot have a valid opinion about it. Non sequitur. Many sceptics received a full Christian upbringing. Many scholars are able to study a belief system closely enough to gain an accurate understanding of it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I suspect many of those who argue so desperately against Christianity do so from fear and even hatred of it, esp. the Catholic Church. It's only Christianity that seems to really bother them. I seldom see that kind of intensity directed against other religions.
Wrong, I have never denied that scholars, of any or no faith, can gain an accurate understanding of Christianity. But that understanding has to include acknowledging the existence of beliefs orthodox Christians believe are true. Which does not believe they too have to believe them.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: a certain amount of self-knowledge is good. Too much turning to the interior is bad, because it encourages narcissism, to which humans are inherently prone. As Poul put it, better to be outer-directed.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree.
Ad astra! Sean
I think that that is a false dichotomy. Everyone needs to understand both themselves and the world outside them. Zen meditation is realistic, not narcissistic.
Kaor, Paul
And I believe Christian contemplation, directed as it is by the goal of being focused on God, away from the individual, to be sounder.
Ad astra! Sean
I do not.
Post a Comment