In HG Wells' The Time Machine, Morlocks and Eloi are two sides of humanity: devolved Victorian proletarians and bourgeoisie, respectively. In Poul Anderson's The Night Face, the Gwydiona Day Face and Night Face are two sides of humanity: sanity and insanity, respectively. The difference is that the Faces are inside each individual Gwydiona whereas social classes, then divergent species, have parted company physically and, in 802,701 A.D., do not even share the Earth's surface.
When the Time Traveler arrives in 802,701 A.D., he sees the Eloi but not yet the Morlocks because the latter live underground, emerging only at night. When Raven arrives on Gwydion, he sees the Gwydiona but not yet their Night Face because it is not yet Bale time.
Something, which turns out to be the Morlocks, causes Eloi to disappear during the Dark Nights. Something, which turns out to be themselves, causes Gwydiona to disappear during Bale time. There is a theory that the mountain apes are responsible. The apes would have been physical counterparts of the Morlocks but something else is happening.
Society divides into classes. The human mind starts out divided, in different parts of the brain, and tries to pull itself together into a single psyche, not always successfully: "My name is Legion for we are many." The Gwydiona have redivided themselves into long sane periods and short insane periods.
16 comments:
Personally I tend to reject dualism. Human beings are of a single, not particularly well integrated, piece. In comparative terms we're a young and very rapidly evolved species.
Mammals in general are: we remained small and generalized until the end of the Cretaceous, and only then began to radiate, due to fortuitous circumstances (the asteroid impact, basically).
(The dinosaurs were a much more evolved genera -- they'd been diversifying for over 200 million years when the sky fell on their heads. Even now, birds are more advanced than mammals in many respects. Their brains are much more efficient per ounce, for example, and their metabolisms and general skeletal structure are more efficient.)
Then hominids did the same thing, only even faster and even more recently. The first real hominin was h. erectus, which emerged only 2 million years ago; h. sapiens is only 300,000-250,000 years old; and we seem to have hit some subtle behavioral threshold to fully modern status only about 90,000 years ago. That's when people who leave the same sort of "signature" as modern hunter-gatherers emerge.
Our cognitive abilities are sort of slathered on top of the basic social pack-hunting-ape that appeared 2 million years ago. It's not surprising we're internally screwed up.
I usually use "dualism" to refer to God-world dualism or mind-body dualism, both of which I reject. Each of us is a single psychophysical organism but with the successive cerebral layers that you indicate. There is a psychological duality in the Gwydiona and a class conflict, exaggerated into a difference between species, in 802,701 AD.
Kaor, Paul!
And I found Wells' "class conflict" between the equally degenerated Morlocks and Eloi crude, simplistic, and totally unconvincing. Real human beings and their societies are never so simplistic, un-nuanced, and one sided. Which helps to explain why I don't believe in Marxism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that Marx and Engels had a lot more going for them than you think. Their analyses of historical societies were concrete, not abstract. Their accounts of exploitation and alienation make senses. They understood that societies change and identified causes of change. They aimed at universal emancipation, not at the monstrosities that have been committed in their name - as has been done with other beliefs and philosophies. They understood that a population must change its conditions by its own efforts, not by a minority imposing a new regime, although precisely the opposite of this is attributed to them. Other economists have learned from Marx's analysis of the inherent instability of the current system. He and Engels correctly predicted in 1848 that capitalism, as we call it, would conquer the world. It is still possible to learn from them with or without accepting their analysis in full.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
While I'm willing to think Marx and Engels had some sensible things to say when it came to merely historical analysis, I don't they had anything lasting or valuable to say about economics. They certainly did not understand that the value of anything, including "labor" (however that is defined), does not depend on how much effort or labor it took to make or do something. Rather, value depends on how much OTHERS desire something. No, economists like Bohm-Bahwerk (not sure I spelled it right), and Ludwig von Mises, etc., gave us more correct analyses of how an economy works.
And the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al, found Marxism so easy and convenient an instrument of tyranny should tell anyone that something is seriously wrong with it!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But tyrants can misapply any ideas.
We will continue to disagree about economics, of course.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, of course, but EVERY single Marxist regime has been despotic, no exceptions. I think that is a datum worth considering.
And my view is that free enterprise economics and the marginal valuation of goods and services WORKS--and nothing else ever has.
But this is an old argument, I know! So, I'll stop.
Ad astra! Sean
Marx was very clever, though an unpleasant man — a scrounged and parasite, a snob (he loved boasting of his wife’s noble ancestry) and an exploiter of women.
However, he was trying to develop a science of history in an age without much real knowledge of history — they still thought Greece was a cradle of civilization in his day, and history was.a branch of literature. He had nothing but hostile stereotypes about non-Western civilizations.
Hence while his observations of 19th century Europe contains some acute elements, and he could be very insightful in general — hence his remark that while human beings made history, they didn’t make it just as they pleased — when he travels further afield or tries to be a prophet, he blunders constantly.
He lacked modesty, too.
Mr Stirling,
Thank you for this broader picture.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And you helped to clarify exactly how, in a few ways, Marx had something useful or interesting to say. Otherwise, no.
And "scrounged" is a new word to me. Which I'll look up.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Scrounge" and "scrounger" are British English words. Marx scrounged from his successful, well-to-do friend, Engels.
Paul.
The only time Marx actually applied for a real job (as a clerk) he was turned down because his handwriting was so bad.
More damning revelations!
Of course, anyone who tries to apply Marxist ideas here now should not harbor any illusions about their originator.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I was puzzled by Stirling's use of "scrounge/scrounger." I wondered if it was a morphing of "scoundrel" with another word. "Scrounge," a British English word meaning someone who lives off another's money. Got it!
To me, now that he is, after all, long dead, it's Marx's failed ideas that matters, rather than his unpleasant personality. Albeit, I agree that a man's personality will shape how he expresses his ideas.
Mr. Stirling: and it really was important, in those days before typewriters, for clerks and secretaries to have clear, readable, legible handwriting.
Ad astra! Sean
A man’s personality will also color his ideas. Marx was bloody-minded and naturally inclined to want anyone he disliked dead; he claimed the Paris Commune failed because the Communards didn’t do enough killing (and specifically recommended killing more hostages) and often said that “unprogressive” small nationalities should be wiped out.
In this sense, Lenin was Marx’s true heir, though he actually got a chance to kill millions and did so with a snarl of hatred and bloodlust — his letters, released after 1991, drip with blood and calls for hanging, shooting, and starving. Trotsky was similar. They both loved “mankind’ but despised actual living human beings.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I absolutely agree that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, et al, were blood drenched monsters and tyrants! As anyone who has read Solzhenitsyn's THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO should have the guts to admit.
And the more I learned about Marx personally the more contempt I have for him. Marx laid the eggs that Lenin, et al, hatched. As you said, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Kims, Pol Pot, etc., were Marx's heirs.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment