An unusual story: I think that everyone just has to read it for themselves.
"...as a man grew older, without loss of physical and mental faculties, he found more and more within himself, an unfolding inward richness..."
I think that that can be true even within an unextended lifespan. Does the remembered younger self not sometimes seem to have been superficial? But "within" and "inner" should not imply introversion: a deepening perception or understanding of both inner and outer.
Langdon wonders whether "...the ancient natives..." had "...simply become extinct..." or "...finally seen the allness of the world and gone - elsewhere?" Like the Chereionites in the Technic History? (Or, at least, what many believed had become of the Chereionites.)
His wife, Eileen, remembers winter storms on Earth:
"'If it was around Christmas time, we'd be singing the old songs..."
A topical reference.
Outside in the storm, Langdon approaches oneness:
"He knew - in another moment he would know, he would be part of the allness and have peace within him."
Transcendent experiences, which characters can have in any kind of fiction.
By early adulthood you're as smart as you'll ever be. What you lack is -experience-, for which there's no real substitute. You can be taught to -mimic- experience (most military training is aimed at that) but the true thing is only gradually acquired.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why I am so skeptical of "transhumanist" nonsense about human beings somehow having untapped powers and potentialities inside them. (Snorts)
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean: yeah, it's mystical gibberish. People inducing inner states and then mislabeling them.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteLike the people eating "magic mushrooms" and claiming mystical gibberish from their drug induced highs.
All that said, since I do believe the supernatural is real, I believe God sometimes grants/delegates miraculous abilities to some of the saints, such as Padre Pio. And the risen Christ, being God as well as Man, was able to pass thru locked doors when meeting the Apostles (in John's Gospel).
Merry Christmas! Sean
I interpret the Resurrection accounts differently, of course.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI know, we have to agree to disagree.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe have to disagree because, as I understand it, you have chosen to believe and I think that belief is a matter of evidence and reasons, not of choice.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteAnd that applies to you as well, I don't believe in your "evidence and reasons." I believe in what I hold to be true evidence and convincing reasons, as well as making decisions/choices.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut I do not CHOOSE to disbelieve.
If you think that you have true evidence and convincing reasons, then you are not choosing to believe.
See my "Evidence for the Resurrection" article at the beginning of my "Religion and Philosophy" blog.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteDisagree, we do make choices for or against what we believe. Even after Copernicus many astronomers stubbornly clung to the work of Claudius Ptolemy. It took time and accumulated evidence before such astronomers gave up belief in Ptolemaic astronomy.
Merry Christmas! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteDisagree.
Time and accumulated evidence made it impossible any longer to CHOOSE to believe that the sun went round the Earth. We do not now CHOOSE to believe that the Earth goes round the sun. We KNOW it because of overwhelming evidence. If someone does merely choose to believe something despite all the evidence against it, then he is being irrational.
I do not choose to disbelieve in the Resurrection. I examine the evidence and find it insufficient. If you think that the evidence is convincing, then you do not choose to believe. You are obliged to accept what you think is the only possible conclusion based on the evidence.
This introduction into the discussion of "choice" with its moral implications, e.g., people who "refuse" to believe are condemned as "stubborn," is merely a way of ducking the issue of straightforwardly discussing the alleged evidence of an empty tomb (not mentioned by either Peter or Paul) and Resurrection appearances (easily explained in other ways).
Paul.