Dialogue between Trevelyan and Nicki, paraphrased -
Nicki: If Trevelyan were killed, then she would hunt down the killer.
Trevelyan: It would be better to correct the conditions that led to killing.
Nicki, bitterly: Trevelyan is too civilized.
Trevelyan's response:
"The ancient war, he thought, the immemorial struggle of intelligence to master itself." (p. 127)
- is the basic theme of the Psychotechnic History, reintroduced here long after its initial presentation in "Un-Man" and "The Sensitive Man," where the protean enemy was identified as man himself. After many millennia of this future history, the issue will be resolved closer to the Galactic centre.
14 comments:
The ultimate reason for killing is the existence of human beings. In that sense, the only way to have "peace" would be the extinction of humanity.
A literal interpretation of Buddhist teaching implies the same thing. If everyone became celibate, then there would be no births. If everyone ended their greed, hate and delusion, then, according to the teaching, there would be no rebirth. So the optimum state would be an uninhabited Earth with neither animals nor human beings.
Although I meditate, I do not accept the rebirth teaching and want the world to be full of people who have transcended the old causes of conflict and some of whom continue to procreate. We (could) have a great future ahead.
Kaor, Paul!
And that is not going to happen. Because, like it or not, whether or not you believe it, human race is a FALLEN species, permanently prone to violence and conflict, things which can only be managed, not "solved." So I agree with Stirling.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Whether or not I believe it, your belief is right and my belief is wrong... Sure.
Maybe God or Cosmos will eventually make things clearer to more people?
Meanwhile, we each have a responsibility to seek - and to practice what we find. I cannot practice the prayer of monotheist faith, "Our Father...," but I can practice the agnostic pagan prayer, "To Whom it may concern, to Whatever gods may be..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
God, not "Cosmos." The cosmos, as such, is merely a thing, unable to help or guide us.
When I think of how the greatest philosophers of the past, west or east, men like Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Marcus Aurelius, etc., were far more inclined than not to belief in one God, not many, I find this aversion you have for monotheism puzzling.
The rest I can agree with!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I find monotheism philosophically questionable. The creator before the creation would be a self without other which is like a square without sides.
The Cosmos is reality. It expresses itself through conscious beings. One poet, prophet or philosopher can express more of reality than another.
Paul.
Sean regards humans as "fallen" and I don't, but we don't really disagree much on what humans -are-.
Only on how they got there... 8-).
In the end, we both disbelieve in the possibility of humans 'perfecting' themselves.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I have tried suggesting, in the past, that the revelation of the Trinity, three Persons in the one consubstantial godhead, would resolve your philosophical objection to monotheism. But that, I agree, is based on divine revelation, not philosophical reasoning.
I'm reminded of the vision granted to Elijah in 3 Kings 19.11-13: "And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord; and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord overthrowing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces; the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake; and the Lord is not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air. And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood at the entering in of the cave,..."
Likewise God, or if you prefer, the Ultimate, is not to be found in the splendors of the cosmos if He is not to be found in hurricanes, earthquakes, or blazing conflagrations.
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! I know you are at least an agnostic when it comes to God, but we mostly agree on what human beings are LIKE.
It's hard enough simply not being too bad all the time; "reformers" trying to create a perfect Utopian society are far more likely to end up with a hell on Earth. Which is a big reason why I loath Utopian monsters like Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, et nauseatingly al!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Trinity doctrine originated because the 4th Gospel deified the Son and personified the Spirit yet remained monotheist: three Persons but one God = Trinity. It was not to explain how a self-conscious being could pre-exist everything else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because belief in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity can be found in the older parts of the NT as well, not just in John's gospel.
And the Trinity would still answer your philosophical objection.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Is the Spirit personified in the Synoptics?
Self is recognized as such only by contrast with other. Each person is both a subject of consciousness and an object of the consciousness of other subjects. If three persons are neither embodied nor spatially differentiated, then how can each of them appear as other to either of the others?
Paul.
Sean: I don't regard humans as "bad", just inclined to act in certain ways.
You can't get rid of the inclinations, which are like a prevailing wind -- they don't actually -determine- where your ship will go, but they certainly affect it.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, I believe the Synoptics gives us enough that orthodox Christianity rightly concluded our Lord the Spirit is indeed a Person proceeding from the Father and the Son. And I believe these Persons are aware of themselves and of each other.
Mr. Stirling: I don't think we are disagreeing. I do think too many of us act on those inclinations in bad and destructive ways. The rapist, for example, acts on his inclination to have sex in violent and non-consensual ways
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Can you give me some Synoptic Quotes?
If you remove embodiment and spatial distance, how can two persons be other to each other?
Paul.
Post a Comment