Some Tahirians wonder whether mankind is sane. Ruszek responds:
"('Maybe we aren't. By your standards, at least.')" (p. 284)
(The brackets remind readers that conversation is not through speech but through artificially produced screen symbols and sounds.)
Ruszek's qualification, "By your standards...," is an important one. Human beings themselves differ tremendously as to what constitutes sane behaviour.
He continues:
"'We are what we are, whatever it may be, and I'll stick to that.'" (ibid.)
(Like a time traveller in "Flight to Forever" saying that he likes his neuroses. See here.)
Again, human beings differ. Some stand by what they are. Fred Hoyle wrote in The Nature Of The Universe that he was "an unrepentant sinner." However, many - and this also is part of what we are - perceive a need for change within themselves. We are "sinners" (Christian) or motivated by "greed, hate and delusion" (Buddhist) or by "ignorance" (Vedantist). Many of our actions are "sinful" or, and I prefer this terminology, "wrong." What is to be done about this? We do not need a sermon or a lecture from me here. But, if I met the Tahirians or any other intelligent species, then I would hope to learn from them, not just to stand by what humanity already is!
(When major work is being done in the house, we vacate it for the day so there has not been much blogging today.)
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I agree with Ruszek, we are whatever we are, good and bad, and we should not try to deny that.
I see no real difference between a sin and a wrong/bad act. E.g., murder is certainly a sin and a bad act, a very bad one.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Conceptual confusion here, I think. Deny what we are? Of course not. Try to do something about what we are? Yes, surely?
Paul.
I'm happy with human beings as they are and have no particular desire to change them en masse... and for that matter, short of genetic engineering, I don't think it's -possible- to change the spectrum of human motivations and behaviors.
Kaor, Paul!
No, in effect, people who believe in what I consider to be hopelessly Utopian views of somehow changing human beings are doing that, denying. So while I am not happy at how flawed, imperfect, and corruptible we all are or can be, I agree with Stirling's comment.
Ad astra! Sean
People who disagree with you are denying? They are not. They are disagreeing. You are defining your views as right. That is no way to conduct a discussion.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not denying you can believe as you like and expound your ideas. I simply don't believe in them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You go further. You claim that those who disagree with you are in denial of the truth.
Of course you don't believe in my ideas! If we just wind up saying that I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, then we are reduced to tautologies.
Paul.
I do not believe as I like. I try to follow the evidence and have changed my views completely from what I was brought up to believe.
Post a Comment