Three Hearts... is fundamentally a fantasy despite its half-hearted and superficial rationalizations of lycanthropy etc.
Thesis: fantasy - supernatural events; no explanations needed.
Antithesis: sf - "natural" events only; at least nominal rationales needed.
Synthesis: a fictional multiverse incorporating both natural and supernatural universes.
(In a comic book multiverse, one parallel Earth was inhabited by anthropomorphic animals because everything published by that same company had to be included.)
Three Hearts... is part of a fantasy history in which King Arthur etc had existed. The Technic History is a future history covering many generations, centuries and millennia although only three of the seven volumes of The Technic Civilization Saga are multi-generational:
Volume I covers:
exploration of the Solar System
the Grand Survey (early interstellar exploration)
the later exploration of Avalon
the Polesotechnic League in the time of van Rijn and Falkayn
Volume III covers:
the beginning of the end of the League
the two-stage colonization of Avalon
the Time of Troubles
the early Terran Empire
the Terran-Ythrian war with its consequences for Avalon
Volume VII covers:
the Terran Empire in the time of Flandry
the post-Imperial Long Night
the Allied Planets
civilizations in several spiral arms
Volume II is the van-Rijn-Falkayn period.
Volumes IV-VI are the Flandry period.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I did not think those rationalizations of "lycanthropy, etc." to be superficial or half-hearted in either THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS and the two OPERATION books.
It's my firm belief that the miracles recorded and studied at Lourdes by unimpeachable witnesses and investigators gives us empirical evidence the supernatural is real. Strained arguments trying to explain that people dying of bone cancer and ALS were instantaneously cured by some unknown natural means are not convincing.
The Technic series, vast as it is, has some regrettable gaps. I have wished
Anderson had set some more stories during the Time of Troubles and the 150 years between "The Star Plunderer" and "Sargasso of Lost Starships." And we should have seen more about the Empire in the two centuries between THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND and ENSIGN FLANDRY, when it was at the height of its power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is my firm belief that we have been through the whole Lourdes issue several times! Do Catholic theologians and apologists place so much emphasis on it?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My recollection is that Catholic theologians believe a major reason for the cures at shrines like Lourdes is for showing the mercy and power of God, delegated by Him to saints acting with His permission. My personal belief is that miracles show the inadequacy of antisupernaturalist beliefs, because they are not able to account for such events.
Therefore, if elements of the supernatural are in THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS, that makes the story more realistic, not less, to me because I'm then often reminded of Lourdes and the events recorded there.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But do theologians place a big emphasis on Lourdes for apologetic purposes?
We do not and cannot account for every observed event.
A cure is an empirically discernible event. A supernatural cause is an untestable explanatory theory. The scientific approach is to continue seeking an explanation while also acknowledging how much remains unknown.
Supernaturalism is a belief. "Antinsupernaturalism" is not a belief but the absence of that belief.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Most of them, if not also engaged in controversial debates, probably don't. But that can shade from plain exposition of beliefs to arguments when explaining why the Church doesn't believe in Luther's doctrine of Sola
Scriptura.
I don't believe antisupernaturalists will ever be able to account for how dying people were instantaneously cured when placed in the waters at Lourdes.
I disagree, if someone does not believe the supernatural is real that means he believes in its opposite--antisupernaturalism. You cannot logically disbelieve in A without accepting its opposite--B.
Ad astra! Seajn
Sean,
It is not "antisupernaturalists" who try to explain phenomena. It is or should be all scientists. No one should stop seeking explanations just on the ground that "God did it." We do not know what will be explained in future. No one in the pre-scientific past could have anticipated our present explanations of the universe, the formation and multiplicity of galaxies, other natural phenomena, the origin of life etc.
I disagree. Those who believe in the supernatural are obliged to give reasons for their belief. Those who simply do not accept that belief are not obliged to give reasons for a contrary belief in "antisupernaturalism." You do not seem to understand this logical point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Nio objection to your first paragraph. The Church has no objection to scientists investigating Lourdes. I simply don't believe they will ever find a merely natural explanation for what happens there.
I disagree with your second paragraph because you are missing the point, there are people who don't believe the supernatural is real. That logically means they believe its opposite, antisupernaturalism, is true.
Ad astra! Sea
Sean,
I am not missing the point. People who don't believe the supernatural is real will continue to believe that it is not real until someone can show them otherwise. No one is obliged to prove a negative. If you assert that there is life on Mars, then you are obliged to present evidence for it. You are not entitled to defy others to disprove it. You are not entitled to challenge others to disprove the supernatural.
Paul.
There is no difference in practice between "I do not believe that X exists" and "I believe that X does not exist." In both cases, we act without taking the alleged existence of X into account. In both cases, we would need some evidence or argument to persuade us that X does exist. In neither case are we obliged to prove that X does not exist. It is only the X-believers who have something to prove.
Post a Comment