Here is a different perspective:
"'There must be rule, yet how can creatures rule themselves? Beasts must be ruled by hnau and hnau by eldila and eldila by Maleldil. These creatures have no eldila. They are like one trying to lift himself by his own hair - or one trying to see over a whole country when he is on a level with it - like a female trying to beget young on herself.'"
-CS Lewis, Out Of The Silent Planet IN Lewis, The Cosmic Trilogy (London, 1990), pp. 1-144 AT 16, p. 91.
beasts = animals
hnau = rational animals
eldila = angels
Maleldil = God
"These creatures..." = Terrestrials
We must learn how to rule ourselves. That learning is still in progress. We are not on a level with our surroundings but have raised ourselves above them. Rationality transcends animality which transcends unconscious organicism and inanimate matter. What did Lewis think that we would find on other planets? In fact, he was against us going there.
25 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree with Lewis's attitudes. Even if mankind had not Fallen, ruling ourselves by one means or another would still have been our responsibility. It simply would have been vastly less difficult!
And there is nothing wrong, per se, to mankind striving to reach the planets of other worlds. I remember from Lewis' essay "Religion and Rocketry" how he believed un-Fallen non-human races which had passed their Tests would be more than able to cope with mankind.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I should also have mentioned how, in Chapter 1 of THE GAME OF EMPIRE, the Wodenite priest Fr. Axor mentioned it was painfully obvious that all known oxygen breathing intelligent races were Fallen. And non-oxygen breathing species like the Ymirites--with me citing how a Ymirite tried to kill Flandry on Jupiter in Chapters IV/V of HUNTERS OF THE SKY CAVE showing they were not, mildly put, in a state of grace!
Ad astra! Sean
No, rationality is a -tool- of instinct. There is no rational reason to want to live, for example.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, which helps explain why I don't believe in arguments like those Paul believes in.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't see the connection. I have shown how people can live in peace. We do not irrationally attack neighbours or strangers for no reason. There is always a reason why violence happens and those reasons can be eliminated. We have been through innumerable specific examples. Football hooliganism is caused by social alienation which need not always exist. And so on.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except that is exactly what happens many, many times! I only cite examples like that Haitian warlord with a taste for burning people alive. Sorry, I don't believe in this mysticizing of "rationality."
Ad astra! Sean
Sorry. I have not mysticized rationality. We seem to be having separate dialogues here.
Of course violence happens in horrific conditions like Haiti. I forwarded you a link on the history of Haiti. People living in peaceful conditions do not develop tastes for burning people alive. Simply quoting examples of actual violence does not prove that we cannot end the social causes of violence. We have many peaceful communities and CAN, not inevitably WILL, build more.
I have re-forwarded a link on Haiti.
Kaor, Paul!
Except you persist in clinging to erroneous ideas about human beings. We are all of us born "self alienated," innately prone to being violent. Some more so than others. And the only reason why it's possible for some people to be "peaceful" is because of the State, with its monopoly of violence, ready to crack down on those who don't want to be peaceful. Your "peaceful communities" are possible only because of the State's existence. Which means I don't believe in your "social causes of violence."
No State means the war of all against all, as is happening in Haiti. And I have already read up on Haitian history, and of how ghastly its post-independence existence has been since 1804. A seemingly endless series of dictators, brutal clowns, or bunglers. Almost the only time Haiti had any kind of even halfway decent gov't was during the US occupation from 1915-34.
Ad astra! Sean0
Sean,
I do not persist in clinging to erroneous ideas about human beings. We are not innately prone to being violent. Most of us are indeed capable of responding violently if pushed too far. Otherwise, most people most of the time have no reason to be violent. The State is not the only reason why many people are peaceful. (No quote marks needed.) Most people are peaceful anyway. We are repeating ourselves. My peaceful communities do not depend only on the State. Violence does not have social causes?
When there is abundance, there will be no need to fight for food or property and no need for a state to prevent "theft." Haiti is not an example of a high tech society with abundance and shared wealth. (Have you watched the video I sent about the US role in Haiti? It contradicts what you just said.)
Why do you persist in this argument? Surely we have said everything by now?
Paul.
Sean,
When you realize that a line of argument contradicts your assumptions, you automatically dismiss the argument and do not respond to its details but repeat what you have said before as if it had never been replied to before. When I cited a specific example, you thought that I was generalizing from a single instance. When I say that we CAN make life better, you think that I mean that we WILL make life better. When you say "free enterprise," I reply "future abundance." When you say that abundance will generate apathy, I reply, "Not in everyone." We are dynamically different. Many are curious and creative. Every time you have cited "power and status," I have replied to that except the last time when I thought that we were overdoing the repetition.
That we are innately prone to being violent is an erroneous idea about human beings. Think of the many people you know who are never violent. It is you that is persisting and clinging. Most people are innately prone to being non-violent when surrounded by family, friends and a supportive society. We can foster and encourage such social conditions - conditions. We CAN also continue to generate Haiti, Ukraine and Gaza, of course. Let us, at last, go the right way instead of the wrong way.
Despite everything that I have just said, I am by now unfortunately confident that this argument will continue to repeat itself word for word.
Paul.
The phrase, "erroneous ideas," is another example of stating as if it were a fact that you are right and I am wrong. That will not do as a way to conduct an argument.
I have just emailed something else about Haiti.
Sean,
The fact that you think that it is relevant to cite Haiti, a country that has gone very far backwards, when I talk about the future, countries that will HOPEFULLY have used advanced technology and reorganization to move themselves very far forwards, shows that you do not understand, I suspect willfully misunderstand, what is being said. You politically dislike the conclusion that I have reached. That is enough. That means that you must think of anything and everything that you can say against it instead of giving it any kind of fair hearing. If we were able to move the discussion even slightly forward, then of course I would acknowledge that there are still many major obstacles to be overcome before we can even begin to approach the kind of society that I hope to see in the future. But we never get that far. We remain mired in an initial incomprehension combined with a determination to disagree.
Paul.
I recently read "Mankind: A Hopeful History" by Rutger Bregman, for a book club discussion.
Anyone who is interested in what arguments there might be that Paul's 'utopian' hopes could be achievable should read it. Especially if you *do not* currently take those hopes seriously.
A few of the many interesting points made in the book:
- apparently evidence for warfare among pre-agricultural people is very sparse. Such evidence becomes *much* more common post agriculture.
- He discusses "The Lord of the Flies" and how a real life case of such castaways turns out *far* better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways
I will add that Heinlein's "Tunnel in the Sky" is something of an anti- "Lord of the Flies". Most of the stranded teenagers in Heinlein's story have the good sense to work together.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Then we can't agree, because I don't believe in the realism and plausibility of what you argue for re human beings and the future. At least you conceded what you hope for will not necessarily come to exist.
Haiti is a relevant example, because it is a glaringly clear example of what happens when you don't have even a bad state to keep some kind of order. And other nations like Chavista Venezuela and the Congo are going down the same road.
Jim: Yes, I don't believe in what I consider Utopian unrealism. It's hard enough for people and nations not to be too terribly bad without indulging in fantasies.
I disagree re violence or warfare among pre agricultural pre-State peoples. Stirling presented evidence/arguments that what existed was a state of permanent low intensity violence. Small family groups/tribes were often attacking each other, sometimes for control of hunting grounds, sometimes just for fun and grabbing women and slaves. Stirling also mentioned being found of massive battles and wars among such peoples banding together for that purpose. Stirling also discussed how DNA analysis found evidence of drastic population turnovers when Population A with a different strain of DNA invaded Population B's (with another strain of DNA) territory, with the latter being exterminated.
We have to expect evidence to be sparse with pre-agricultural and pre-literate peoples. Such evidence becomes far more plentiful with agriculture and the rise of the first States.
There will be exceptions of the kind you cited, but it's not the way to bet generally,
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yet again I say that we have not been trying to agree. If that is all that we have been trying to do for all this time, then there really has been no point. How often do you have a discussion with a Protestant, Muslim or atheist and wind up agreeing with them or them agreeing with you? It is no kind of concession for me to say BOTH that I would like certain things to happen AND that it is possible that those things will not happen! Surely that is obvious and does not need to be said?
Paul.
Haiti is not an example of a high tech society whose population has democratic processes and procedures that enable them to produce and share wealth. My persistent feeling during this exchange is of mutual incomprehension.
An argument that society WILL be different in future and CAN be better in future for specific reasons is not a fantasy. It is a reasoned argument.
Whatever happened in pre-agricultural societies, advanced technological societies will be completely different. This is like arguing that the supra-rational must be exactly like the sub-rational because both are similar in not being merely rational.
How is it unreal or implausible to point that here and now - not in the future - there are many situations in which human beings do interact sociably, politely, considerately and non-violently and that these situations can be identified and understood, then encouraged and expanded in future?
BTW, you are not being asked to agree, merely to acknowledge that there is indeed a reasonable argument, not a Utopian fantasy, here.
Paul: economics is not why people attack each other. Desire for -power- is why they do; and that is inherent.
Kaor, Paul!
Because you refuse to accept, among other things, that the craving for power and status is inherently a part of us as human beings. You can be as prosperous and advanced as you like and people will scheme, conspire, or seek power. As in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not refuse to accept something. I disagree with you about it. You cannot state the issue fairly or objectively.
I utterly deny that a craving for power and status is inherent in human beings. That is a slander of many human beings who are either well-intentioned or at best indifferent. I am looking at people as they concretely are instead of engaging in abstract generalizations.
I have replied about "power and status" many times but you simply repeat the phrase. Power, the ability to coerce, requires instruments of coercion, bodies of armed men, police and an army. Police exist to protect property. With advanced technology, wealth can be abundant and need not be guarded against people trying to "steal" it. Such societies need not contend for resources or territory. Armies and weapons are a waste of resources that instead could enrich everyone.
Status, prestige, is something that most people can grow out of and, if some still want to play such games, we can leave them to it.
Look at loving families and people absorbed in their work or dedicated to a common cause and ask yourself how much time or energy they invest in scheming and conspiring against each other. It is a nonsense. You emphasize the negative. One-sidedly. You might just as well list how many times people help each other, donate to charities, enjoy each other's company etc. And we CAN use our resources to build societies that encourage all that.
Paul.
Post a Comment