When Nicki talks about revenging him if he were killed, Trevelyan reflects on:
"The ancient war...the immemorial struggle of intelligence to master itself." (p. 127)
This struggle, although sometimes forgotten, is the underlying theme of this future history series. However, we have posted about it at greater length before:
See The Ancient War.
Also, this war or struggle is won in Anderson's Brain Wave:
See Changing Nature. and Reason And Emotion
My aim is to post enough for this evening, then to read Inspector Morse and to watch the evening news to find out whether World War III has begun. (Might they maintain the taboo on nukes but otherwise replay WWII across Europe and further afield? Are we in the opening instalment of a dystopian future history?)
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
See Matthew 24.6ff. That Immemorial Struggle is not going to end so easily.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it will end. Nothing lasts forever.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
With the second coming of Christ.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Which should have happened 2000 years ago.
Evolution and history will continue for the time being. There is a danger that they will end soon. If they do not end soon, then they will not stand still. Fundamental changes will continue. Those changes CAN include social progress which we would regard as "utopian" but which is materially possible just as our technological advantages far transcend the material conditions of earlier periods but would then have been regarded as impossible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not going to agree, Our Lord warned His disciples that no man knows the hour of His return.
No, those "fundamental changes" will not include some magical transformation of human beings via something as simplistic as mere technological changes. What you are hoping for is the fallacy of the Earthly Paradise.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not magical. Technological changes are not simplistic. Our life is qualitatively different from that of our remote ancestors. What I am hoping for is possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
All the technological changes seen since the Old Stone Age has not eliminated our innate tendencies to be violent, quarrelsome, bellicose, strife prone, etc. I am again reminded of Chapter Six of GENESIS, where we see a society as advanced and peaceful as possible, and people still ended up quarreling. Probably from sheer boredom!
Anderson was far more realistic.
Add astra! Sean
Sean,
We do not have innate tendencies to be violent, quarrelsome, bellicose, strife prone etc. There are many conditions and circumstances in which people are naturally the opposite of all these things and those conditions can be fostered and encouraged. You are slandering the human race. Your account is at best completely one-sided. You might just as well list positive moral qualities and call those our innate tendencies. But we have diverse tendencies in different circumstances and we can take control of our circumstances.
I am again reminded that I have replied repeatedly about GENESIS, Chapter Six. That society is not as advanced and peaceful as possible. The vast technological resources are not deployed to identify and develop the full potential of each individual. The kind of society that I advocate and that IS possible is not one where anyone will be bored!
People do not end up quarreling in just any and every circumstances. You are not in fact describing what people are like.
I am realistic.
Paul.
Over time, it becomes clear that you respond not to what has been said but only to a wrong assumption about what has been said. It is assumed that I advocate a society in which, instead of being equipped to develop their individual aptitudes and their social interactions, people would be so bored that they would resort to quarrelsomeness of all things just for the sake of something to do? And I have to reply to this even though I have replied to it several times already? Can't we move the discussion on?
Actually, the fear of revenge is a major control on violence.
Kaor, Paul!
No, you have not proven at all our lack of innate flaws. Nor do I believe in your "conditions and circumstances," persistently ignoring how it's fear of punishment by the State or revenge at the hands of the friends/relatives of a person we may have injured that restrains violence. Stirling's comment reminded me of the role played by feuds/vendettas and weregilds.
We are not going to "move on" because we have fundamentally irreconcilable views about human beings/human nature. My beliefs are backed by the hard facts of real life, real human beings, real history.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, I have proved it. Everything in us is subject to change. It has not always existed, it will not always exist and, while it exists, it undergoes enormous changes. Our ancestors could neither think nor speak. What will our descendants do?
It is incredible that we can disagree about our own immediate experience. Conditions and circumstances are what we live in all the time. Conditions in Britain now are different from conditions in the Middle East now. Look around you at all the circumstances in which friends, neighbours, colleagues, passersby, long lost relatives, new acquaintances met at social gatherings, total strangers asking for directions or needing help respond to each other courteously, considerately, politely, helpfully etc. This is not because of fear of the State. We do not think of the State. If we were solely motivated by that all the time, then we would indeed be in a morally and socially impoverished condition.
By "move on," I do not mean agree! I mean for example stop repeating that the kind of society that I want is anything like GENESIS, Chapter VI.
My beliefs are backed by the hard facts of real life and real human beings as we in fact experience them. History shows us change. The future (if we have one, of course) will bring forth even more change. Eventually, complete transformations.
Do not say that someone persistently ignores something when what he is doing is disagreeing with you about it.
If you simply assume that your view and the facts are identical, then you summarily dismiss any alternative view without properly thinking about it. We have to start from the premise that we have different views for which we state reasons, not on the assumption that one view is simply identical with the facts of the case! I keep running up against this prejudice all the time.
Paul.
Note that cultural change operates within limits set by the genetic nature of human beings, which in turn is determined by evolution. Which is competitive.
Sean: I don't agree on Original Sin, but that's a distinction without a difference, since my conception of human nature encompasses most of what you think of as OS.
I think that it is a distinction with a difference. With "Original Sin," each human being is basically and permanently "sinful," even despite baptism washing away Original Sin in the case of Christians, whereas, with evolution, we are part of a process of change, not permanently fixed in any psychological or moral state.
Post a Comment