Sundaram on the Tahirians:
"'I do not think we can properly call this a conservative society, like old China or old India. That is too weak a word. I think it is posthistoric. It has renounced change in favor of a stable order that apparently provides universal peace, plenty, and justice.'
"'Or so they tell us, if we understand them rightly,' [Yu] replied." (pp. 258-259)
Yu makes two important qualifications: so they tell us; if we understand them.
But what do we think of Sundaram's assessment? It is impossible to renounce change since life is change. Justice and peace go together. Plenty is a material basis for stability. Maintenance of a natural and social environment can be a basis not for mere stasis but instead for maximum individual freedom and development.
Renouncing change in favour of peace is a false dichotomy. Peace is parodied as mere stasis. Individuals and communities living in peace, free from outmoded conflicts, can be dynamic and creative and can set out to explore and understand the universe. They should not be passive recipients but active participants in peace, plenty and justice.
Yu half-heartedly defends what Sundaram describes:
"'Would it be tragic, actually? Not an eternity of boredom or anything like that. The riches and beauty of the world, the treasures of the past, aren't they new to every newborn? A lifetime isn't long enough to know and savor them all. And there can still be new creations. Ancient, fixed modes, I suppose, but new poems, pictures, stories, music.'" (p. 259)
Not boredom? We can do better than that! Yes, everything is new to every newborn and a single short lifetime is not long enough. Yes, there can be new creations but why only in ancient, fixed modes? Why start a discussion by conceding half the argument to the deniers of change?
Sundaram replies:
"'I doubt that the likes of Ricardo Nansen or Jean Kilbridie will agree. For that matter, I doubt that every Tahirian is content with things as they are.'" (ibid.)
Of course Nansen, Kilbridie and some Tahirians will disagree but they will just argue the other side of the false dichotomy, that we must choose between peace and change.
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
The real issue, of course, is that the choice made by the Tahirians did not, in at first only a vague way, satisfy all among that race. A sense of unease that would be strengthened after the arrival of 'Envoy.'
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment