Sunday, 18 December 2022

Quieter Times

"The Plague of Masters" ends appropriately:

"[Flandry] stood for a time under the stars, breathing the night wind. Then faintly across ten kilometers, he heard the crash and saw the flare of guns." (XVI, p. 147)

Time, stars, wind and guns: basic themes.

Nias Warouw, who had wanted to remain a big man on a small planet, has no alternative but to seek his fortune elsewhere - yet another story that we would like to see continued.

The next instalment should be not "Hunters of the Sky Cave" but "The Game of Glory" but is it time to consider another future history for a while?

In the Psychotechnic History, we are interested in the, admittedly implausible, descriptions of technological progress so soon after World War III. That conflict occurred in a single year, 1958, when I was nine and attending a boarding school in Scotland. After that, everything diverged. One man's death matters. A different President matters. Hungary, Suez and Berlin have different outcomes. I am summarizing not Poul Anderson's texts but Sandra Miesel's italicized introduction. Miesel becomes the Hloch of the Psychotechnic History:

"1958, the year the H-bombs fell, set human history careening in a new direction. So obvious is this nexus, an entire genre of fantastic fiction asks the question, 'What if World War III had not happened?' Although romantics prefer to imagine alternative twentieth centuries as lost paradises of peace and plenty, the opposite is likelier to be true."
-Sandra Miesel, The Psychotechnic League IN Poul Anderson, The Complete Psychotechnic League, Vollume 1 (New York, October 1017), pp. 3-4 AT p. 3.

"Nexus" is a key concept in Anderson's Time Patrol series. Miesel comments on our reality through a character in another reality, as Anderson does in "Eutopia." (And, in Alan Moore's Watchmen, a superhero comments that the US would have gone mad as nation if it had lost in Vietnam.)

Still citing Miesel:

Fourre struggles against "Chaos" (p. 19) although not "the Chaos" of the Technic History;

famine, plague, want and radioactivity are slowly conquered (well, not very slowly);

the Years of Hunger are followed by the Years of Madness - which sound like Heinlein's Crazy Years;

there are quieter times, global peace, prosperity, space exploration, the Psychotechnic Institute, happy developments...

Space and psyches are external and internal frontiers - or are they? Does this word apply to both? Physically, all that is inside our brains is interacting neurons but they somehow cause consciousness. Mobile organisms interacting with their environments become increasingly sensitive, then conscious, through neuronic interactions. If we understood this process, then we would understand ourselves.

20 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I agree, we would like to know what HAPPENED to Nias Warouw in later years. It would be piquant if he and Flandry met again, in much more friendly circumstances, in their future.

The ancient mind/body problem! Altho discussed in detail in Mortimer Adler's THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES, I don't claim to understand that philosophic problem.

Stirling is really GOOD at writing page turning novels. I've already read ten chapters of his first Antonine book, TO TURN THE TIDE!

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

No one understands the mind-body problem. By its nature, it may be at or beyond the limit of what we can understand although I oppose obscurantism.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I agree the mind/body problem is at the very edge, or beyond it, of philosophic understanding.

FIFTEEN chapters of TO TURN THE TIDE by now! Going to stop reading the rest of the book for a couple days. I feel the need to think over what I've read so far and reread certain parts, esp. Chapter XV, where we see Marcus Aurelius and Galen.

A bit surprisingly, I've seen no mention of the Early Church so far. True, Christians would still be relatively few and concentrated in the largest cities and ports. Small provincial towns on the borders, like Vindabona (Vienna to be), might not yet have any early Catholics. But, still, I would have expected a few en passant mentions!

Merry Christmas! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: it's generally thought that in Constantine the Great's reign, Christians were about 10% of the Empire's population. In 165 CE they would be very much fewer -- and very heavily concentrated in the Near East at that, mostly in areas that also had large Jewish populations.

The first period of rapid expansion for Christianity was the 200's CE, during the period of collapse and crisis.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I'm sure that was generally the case in the first and second centuries AD. But, the impression I got was of Christians becoming more numerous by Marcus Aurelius' reign.

Merry Christmas! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

It also wasn't until the second and even more the third centuries that Christianity became sharply distinct from Jews and/or from the penumbra of "God-fearers" around Jewish communities.

The official Roman attitude for a long time might be summed up as: "Jews are weird and troublesome, Christians are an especially weird, troublesome variety of Jew."

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Paul was arrested making an offering in the Temple. He founded/championed Gentile Christianity but had not yet fully split from Judaism.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!

Mr. Stirling: I basically agree with you about the rather muddle headed official view taken of the early Christians by the Romans. It reminded me of Pliny the Younger discussion of the Emperor Trajan's famous rescript about the Christians. They were to be left alone unless somebody denounced them to the Imperial official--then they were to be punished, including being put to death.

Paul: I'm sorry, but I absolutely disagree that St. Paul "founded" Christianity in any way. And he too would disagree with you! And it was St. Peter, the first of the popes, who began that opening of the Church to non-Jews. Last, St. Paul made it emphatically clear in his letters that he was careful to consult Peter about what he preached, to make sure it did not diverge from what Peter taught.

I'm puzzled by this obstinate "harping" on St. Paul by "modernist" writers, to the exclusion of the evidence given by the rest of the NT and the first post-Apostolic Catholic writers.

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

The NT is seen as propaganda to back up what Christianity became.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I disagree that the NT is mere propaganda. I firmly believe it to be the inspired word of God. Also, like it or not, the NT is one of the prime sources for what Christians believe is true.

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

The NT propagates a belief.

Merely stating it is inspired doesn't persuade anyone else that it is.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But that goes both ways. Denying the divine inspiration of the NT does not prove that assertion.

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Of course it doesn't! But who said it did? I need a positive reason to believe that a text is inspired. Without such a reason, I do not believe that it is inspired. We have been around in this logical circle before.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Correct, we have reached an impasse, disagreeing about basic principles. For Christians that "positive reason" is that Christ became Incarnate as man, died on the Cross, and rose from the dead to offer salvation to mankind.

Merry Christmas (the feast celebrating the Birth of the Incarnate Logos)! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But those are statements read in the NT.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Since I believe the NT to be divinely inspired, that counts as evidence for me and all who similarly believe as I do about Christ.

And I believe one reason God sometimes grants miracles at Lourdes is to affirm the truth of what the Church teaches about Christ to the faithful. And to encourage those who don't believe into at least thinking they might be wrong.

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Your belief is evidence for your belief?

Lourdes, of course, is another matter that requires investigation.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I believe what the Church teaches about Christ, and many other things is true. Even if based on sources you don't accept. This comes down to being matters of faith accepted by internal assent.

And people who more or less think as you do have STILL not been able to explain away what happens there in a non-supernatural way.

Merry Christmas! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I do not want to explain anything away.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Good! But that is how some anti-Christians think.

Ad astra! Sean