Sometimes an sf writer presents a list, for example of familiar names or events, but then continues that list into the future. Thus, Poul Anderson's Jesse Nicol asks:
"'What's the sense in producing an imitation Odyssey, The Trojan Women, Hamlet, The Waste Land, Elegy at Jupiter?" (p. 83)
We know four of these titles. Nicol knows them and the fifth. He tells us what all five have in common:
"'Those spoke about love, strife, triumph, grief, terror, mystery, in the language of the people and their gods, or people who'd lost their gods but were gaining a universe.'" (ibid.)
Nicol's problem is that, for centuries, all writing, music, art and science has been nothing but variations on old forms and themes, trying to revivify:
"'...something...that was worn-out before their grandparents were born.'" (ibid.)
It is appropriate that his list ends with an elegy.
20 comments:
All art is imitative.
The only original thinker was Adam.
Kaor, Paul!
I sympathize for Jesse Nicol's frustration, his society and culture had hardened to a deadening, monotonous stasis. Arts and sciences can only be dynamic when vigorous and open to change, competition, risks/costs/dangers.
Ad astra! Sean
To be more precise, all art is in coversation with all previous art.
Note that in Shakespeare's "Macbeth", Macbeth doesn't improve his material standard of living by usurpring the throne. He increases his -power-.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Ha, a good point! As far as mere creature comforts are concerned, Macbeth would have been better off remaining a Thane.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup. At that level, material considerations give way to immaterial ones -- power, above all.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, not everything is material. The craving for power can be like an addictive drug. And that reminds me of how you've said one advantage of a hereditary monarchy is that not all monarchs are consumed by the lust for power. And if the monarchy is limited by a prime minister, all the better.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: well, for a long long time power -- social position -- was associated with reproductive success.
Moulay Ismail, Sultan of Morocco at about the same time as Louis XIV, had 3,000 sons.
10% of East Asia is descended from Genghis Khan/Temujin (the latter means "Smith", btw).
So we're all descended from power-grabbers and their hangers-on and enablers.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Moulay Ismail had to have a harem larger than that of King Solomon to have so many sons!
The Ottoman sultans used to solve the problem of having too many brothers when succeeding sultans had them strangled after their father's death.
I believe the drive/urge/instinct/whatever for power and/or reproductive success is innate actively or potentially in all human beings. And that mere prosperity and advanced tech is not going to make it go away. Which means men are going to still compete and struggle for power. Something that can only be managed, not abolished. IWHBD.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There will no longer be power over others when there are no longer any means of coercion.
Paul.
Paul: absent means of coercion, humans would kill each other rather often.; and no, satisfaction of their material wants would not stop them.
That's what happens when a State suffers collapse -- blood-feuds and tribal wars crop up -immediately-.
That's reversion to the mean. It's human nature.
What some of us want is not collapse of a State but development of society to a stage where State coercion is no longer necessary. Satisfaction of material wants is one step. Election, recallability and accountability of all public officials is another step. And so on. It can be discussed in more detail, of course. And much of this will have to be learned in practice. Medieval merchants who pushed against feudal restrictions could not have predicted the global economy that we have now.
Kaor, Paul!
Then all people like Stirling and I can do is explain why we don't believe the hopes you listed are workable. All the evidence I've seen from evolution, archeology, history, real life, etc., convinces me your hopes are not realistic. And if unrealistic they are also undesirable.
Nor do I put any stock in tinkering with things like elections, recallability, etc. It's notorious how history has so often shown us impassioned minorities refusing to accept electoral defeats. In the US the Democrats used to yell a lot demanding recall elections. Guess what happened when efforts were actually made to use recall elections? It was the DEMOCRATS who fought recall elections tooth and nail to defeat them. Because of that innate craving for power all humans actively/potentially have.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
All that any of us can do is to say what we think and why we think it. What I think has changed completely over time.
Evolution, archaeology, history and real life are all about the past and present, not about the future, which we know will be different because everything has changed and is changing and we can reason about possible future societies. If technology regularly produces much more than everyone needs, then there will no longer be any need to compete for anything or to hoard anything and that will change everything else as sf writers demonstrate when they imagine one technological or social change, then spell out all its consequences.
Impassioned minorities refuse to accept electoral defeats? Like Trump and his rioters?
Your political opponents "yell"? They do not just suggest or propose? How does the Democrats' inconsistency affect the issue? All human beings do not actively/potentially have an innate craving for power. I do not find myself wanting to order everyone else about. Peaceful coexistence is much more satisfying. But if democracy really does not work, then why do we have it? I certainly want a lot more democracy, not less.
We are repeating ourselves, aren't we?
Paul.
Paul: you are projecting yourself onto an imagined humanity in the future. But most people are not like you, and never will be.
And people will be different in the future. I think that I am projecting a possible future. And, whatever happens, there will certainly be diversity.
Paul: no, people will not be different in the future. The distribution of personality types is rather constant.
Kaor, Paul!
Stirling is correct, all you are doing is projecting your wishes/hopes into the future. Most people are never going to be like any of the three of us.
Besides what Stirling said about that "distribution of personality types," I would add it's impossible to predict what a man's child will be like. One man can be as peaceful and gentle as you would like, but his son/daughter could be a monster. There was a recent case in the US where a mother murdered her four years daughter because she was jealous of the affection shown the child by her father.
Your hopes are unrealistic, NTTB is the best we can expect.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not think that most people will become like us! I perceive diversity and expect that to continue.
No. I am doing far more than projecting wishes/hopes. I am pointing out that society has already changed from hunting and gathering to high tech global market and finance capitalism, that the scientific and Industrial Revolutions transformed civilization, that we are experiencing more technological revolutions right now, that people living in different societies have different assumptions, expectations, aspirations and value systems and that, whatever else happens, future societies will be even more different from ours than ours is from feudalism. And it is possible for human beings to live in social relationships in which random, irrational violence, if it even happens, is minimized. I should not have to point all this out.
My hopes are realistic. NTTB is nowhere near enough, in fact it is killing many people right now. But why do we keep repeating all these arguments word for word? This seems obsessive. I am determined not to keep replying here at such lengths on these issues from now on.
Paul.
Post a Comment