Flandry's Testament
The Wisdom Of Flandry
- so what might we learn from Manuel Argos, Founder of the Terran Empire?
He has to be a heartless bastard because:
"'...everyone else chooses to be brainless. These aren't times for the tender-minded, you. This is an age of dissolution and chaos, such as has often happened in history, and only a person who first accepts the realities of the situation can hope to do much about them. We don't live in a cosmos where perfection is possible or even desirable. We have to make our compromises and settle for the goals we have some chance of attaining.'"
-"The Star Plunderer," pp. 345-346.
No one chooses brainlessness. Can the stupid choose to be intelligent? Manuel seems to have an intuitive grasp of Desai's theory. Perfection impossible? Empirically, maybe so. The Buddha taught "unsatisfatoriness." But perfection not desirable? We would not even desire to read a perfect sf novel? Surely this is a contradictory statement?
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But I think it is all TOO possible for even the most intelligent persons to believe in foolish, unworkable, impractical, or even "brainless" ideas. Because that has too often been actually the case in real history. That is how I argue we should understand what Manuel said.
Manuel Argos doubted that perfection was even desirable? I fear I have some sympathy for his bleak pessimism. Again, I have read of far too many in real striving for ideal, Utopian, perfect societies or goals--and failing bloodily. So I agree with Manuel when he said we have to be realistic, make compromises, and settle for goals that has some chance of being achieved.
Never thought of that before, but what Manuel said does seem to fit in with Desai's rediscovery of Hord's work.
Sean
Sean,
Some people' IDEA of perfection is not desirable. Different point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I'm suspicious of, and dourly skeptical of ALL hopes, dreams, and aspirations for an ideal, perfect, Utopian society! It's tough enough for any society to simply be not TOO bad. So I still side mostly with Manuel Argos on this matter.
Sean
What Manuel is talking about is realism of expectation. You can't operate without hope, but you can't let hope overcome your analytical abilities, or you'll make bad decisions out of wishful thinking, telling yourself that the unobtainable is obtainable because you want it so badly, or because you hate the alternatives so much.
This is something that human beings are extremely prone to doing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You stated or expressed more clearly and precisely what I was trying to say. I might even copy out these remarks of yours to keep next to what Manuel Argos said.
I thing "realism of expectation" is one of the thing distinguishing conservatives from both leftists and the more extreme libertarians.
Sean
All,
But we can also hold ourselves back. Going to the Moon was thought to be impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree in principle. Too much "realism" can lead to the kind of scientific and technological stagnation or backwardness preventing human beings from making such achievements. In fact, the disastrous shortsightedness of our times about the possibilities of a REAL space program is an example of that.
Sean
Post a Comment