The Domrath are bipeds with elephantine heads - a trunk and tusks. The trunk is neat because it is both a sensory organ, a chemosensor, and a snorkel evolved for breathing during floods. Flandry imagines that, if the Domrath can break out of their seasonal cycle on Talwin, then they might become masters of their part of the galaxy while resembling the Hindu god, Ganesh. (Scroll down.)
A less interesting thought is that the Domrath might worship a god in their own image and join forces with human Ganesh-worshippers! A more interesting question is: how might other intelligent species conceptualize ultimate reality?
According to non-dualist Vedanta, each of us can realize our oneness with Brahman, the transcendent, which is characterized as "being, awareness, bliss." I think that it is just "being." Psychological qualities exist in us but not in the transcendent aspect of the reality - except insofar as it is conscious of itself through us, of course. It follows, I think, that the transcendent as such is impersonal although it is personified as various deities, the most comprehensive being Vishnu.
Our deities are anthropomorphic. Would other intelligent beings also -morphize or would they conceptualize in some other way? We will not know until we meet them.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I find "impersonalism" less than convincing or satisfactory. You can't love, serve, worship, or care about a merely abstract "Force." No, it makes far more sense for God, or even "gods," to be actual beings, persons. And, as a Catholic, I see no need for multitudes of gods when I believe there is only one God, who has existed from all eternity.
In the Technic series we see several races many of whose members believe in varied kinds of monotheism: many humans are Christians, the Consecrates of Ivanhoe have a kind of "Pharaohnic" monotheism, the dominant Wilwidh Ocean Merseians believe in the God who chose them to conquer the galaxy, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We, manifestations of the Force, love and serve each other, not the Force in the abstract. Abstractions are only in our minds. Reality is concrete.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe reality to be only physically concrete or merely material.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are using the word, "concrete," in different senses. I contrast "concrete" with "abstract." Thus, anything that exists has several properties. We abstract one property at a time in order to think about them. Thus, "redness" is an empirical concept abstracted from many red objects. If an object is large, red and spherical, then its size, colour and shape, considered separately, are abstractions.
What is "mere" about "matter"? Philosophically, "matter" is being/energy/reality that preceded and exists independently of consciousness. It is more and other than mechanically interacting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume. Science shows it to be more than that. It changes qualitatively and has become conscious.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree with your first paragraph. As for the second I used "merely" because the cosmos is not truly transcendent, the end goal of mankind. And it is certainly not conscious! Only intelligent beings, separate and apart from it, can be aware the universe exists.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment