Orthochristianity on Dennitza;
Catholicism on Nuevo Mexico;
Judaism on Dayan;
Hinduism on Ramanujan;
a Moslem-Buddhist synthesis on Altai;
a Sikh in Ensign Flandry;
St. Carl's Church in Starfall on Hermes;
a glass cathedral in Domkirk on Freehold;
a ruined temple where Diana Crowfeather keeps her sleeping bag on Imhotep;
Merseians striking their gong (an independent tradition).
I have visited a Jain Temple in Leicester and a Gurdwara in Manchester and, on Saturday, with a group of bilingual (Arabic- and English-speaking) Palestinians, visited the men's prayer room in the Central London Mosque. It was more like a Buddhist meditation hall than either a church or a synagogue. And maybe we are at the beginning of an interstellar civilization? (I doubt it but maybe.)
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Among the shorter Flandry stories "A Message in Secret" is one of my favorites, to say nothing of being the funniest of the Flandry series.* But I did find that Buddhist-Muslim "synthesis" hard to believe, considering how different those faiths are. Then I recalled outlandish "religions" like the Church of Scientology and decided the dominant religion of Altai was possible, after all.
But, given the strong Russian strain in the peoples of Altai, shouldn't there have been Orthodox Christians as well?
The stained glass cathedral of Domkirk we see in "Outpost of Empire" was only possible because of ultra-strong shatter resistant glass plus a minimum, I assume, of steel framework. It reminded me of the Sainte-Chapel in Paris, France. The 13th century engineers and architects of Louis IX really strained the limits of what was then technologically possible, using as much stained glass as possible with a minimum of masonry!
Before we can have an interstellar civilization we'll first most likely go thru an interplanetary phase in the Solar System. I ardently hope for both!
Ad astra! Sean
*Stirling excepted I sometimes think I'm the only one to notice the comedy which can be found in Anderson's stories!
Sean,
In terms of practice, we could share the same hall at the same time:
Buddhists sitting around the walls, facing the wall;
Muslims in the middle of the room, standing, kneeling and prostrating.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, you are missing my point. I was thinking about the Prophet Subotai (correct name?) morphing together disparate beliefs from Buddhism and Mohammedanism on Altai. Which I would still think outlandish.
Ad astra! Sea
Sean,
Of course I know that the world-views are very different. It was a different point to say that the practices could coexist in the way that I described.
Those who emphasise belief focus on differences of belief. If the focus instead is on practice and experience (the latter transcending belief), then differences of belief, while they still exist, are less important and more easily manageable. Islam itself is one form of prophetic monotheism but it developed a "heretical" mystical branch which can overlap with contemplative traditions. Some Muslims and Hindus merged in Sikhism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And what you seem to hope for or want is very unlikely to happen! Esp. given the hostility fanatical Muslims have for all non-Muslims, particularly pagans or those they consider to be polytheists.
You also seem to persist in overlooking how little the Sufis matter within Islam. I've seen Sunni and Shia Muslims, however much they dislike each other, agreeing on denouncing the Sufis as heretics. Because the Sufis were apparently influenced by Christianity.
And the Sikhs are apparently being gradually reabsorbed into Hinduism, which will pretty much nullify whatever influence they had.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are fanatics in every tradition and they will continue to exist as long as social conditions are such that some individuals and groups resort to fanaticism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There will never be perfect "social conditions," because those "conditions" spring from flawed and imperfect human beings. Which means many of our problems can only be managed, not "solved."
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There will be perfect social conditions when society controls technology for the good of all its members.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
All you are offering is sheer unrealism, mere Utopianism. Because there are never going to be perfect social conditions--because all human beings are imperfect.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What I am saying is realistic given all the time in the future (assuming we survive, of course), all the technological potential, all the ability of human beings to learn and to build different kinds of social relationships. We here and now are imperfect but we are not the people of the future living in a completely different society. There is no need for the economy to be based on a minority competitively accumulating wealth by employing the majority. That competition certainly causes deprivation, resentment, strife etc. But wealth need no longer be accumulated and hoarded. It can benefit everyone.
Paul.
Paul: Social plasticity is limited by the instinctual drives of human beings, which are the product of aeons of evolutionary history.
Eg., competitive economies work better (and secure higher standards of living for everyone) because they work -with- the grain of inherent inclination, which is to strive competitively for status.
Whereas what belongs to everyone belongs to nobody... and that's who looks after it.
Kaor, Paul!
Besides what Stirling wrote another objection I would raise is that you are coming close to claiming to predict the future. Because the things you hope for has not been seen or achieved. So it was wrong to insist what you hope fore is "realistic."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not predicting the future. Surely I have said that any particular future development is only a possibility. I keep saying, "IF we survive..." A possibility can be realistic yet remain only a possibility. Clearly there are vast forces ranged against any improvement in social conditions. We would not be in our present crisis state otherwise.
Paul.
Sean,
Things that have not been seen or achieved will never be seen or achieved? Non sequitur. The future will be different. This whole disagreement rests on the insistence that certain suggested developments are not even possible. I certainly do not claim that they will happen.
Paul.
Economic competition HAS worked but surely it has many destructive, wasteful features and will become redundant when wealth is abundant?
Paul: no, wealth is abundant -- in a modern first-world economy -everybody- is 'rich' by the standards of 1850 -- precisely because of the competitive aspects.
Nothing about them is wasteful. "Creative destruction" is necessary for improvement; without it you get stasis.
Note that throughout human history change was usually (except in catastrophic failure modes) very, very slow.
This was basically for two reasons: first, the -concept- of systematic improvement was not there, and secondly, established interests could thwart changes that would be beneficial overall, but immediately harmful to them.
Eg., Kay's flying shuttle doubled the productivity of looms when introduced in the 18th century.
But Kay himself had to flee his home (and for a while, his country) because of the hostility of established weavers' organizations, and of local public authorities unwilling to confront them.
The difference between that period and the Industrial Revolution proper was that groups like the Luddites or the "Captain Swing" rioters who tried to prevent the introduction of threshing machines were smashed rather than accomodated.
This was also a contrast between the Britain of the time and Bourbon France.
The theoretically 'absolute' Bourbon government was in fact extremely timid about encroaching on any vested interest, whether aristocratic or lower-class.
It knew that price controls on food worsened local shortages rather than allieviating them, but didn't dare remove them because of fears of popular reaction.
A series of "chicken" reactions like that was one of the major proximate causes of the French Revolution -- and the Revolutionary government was much more willing to sweep aside resistance of that sort.
In Britain at the same time the State vigorously swept away archaisms of that nature, public reaction be damned. If you tried to stand in the way of progress, you'd be hung or transported to Australia to repent your sins minding sheep.
Vested interests, too right.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with your hopes that mankind will no longer be competitive, aggressive, quarrelsome, or status/power seeking. These are parts of our nature and cannot be removed by preaching at people.
You cannot have beneficial changes without first breaking vested interests who feel threatened by changes of the kind Stirling out lined above.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Cooperation is part of our nature. I do not attempt to remove anything by preaching. Of course we have to challenge vested interests.
Paul.
Paul: agreed, cooperation is part of our nature; as is competition. And as I pointed out, cooperation is a precondition for effective competition.
As Mnntinesque pointed out, a 'rational' army would run away.
I get it that cooperation is a precondition of effective competition and I think that competitive sports will remain a major part of the human condition.
Post a Comment