"The symmetry was suggestive. In Holger's home world, physical forces were strong and well understood, mental-magical forces weak and unmanageable. In this universe the opposite held true. Both worlds were, in some obscure way, one; the endless struggle between Law and Chaos had reached a simultaneous climax in them. As for the force which made them so parallel, the ultimate oneness itself, he supposed he would have to break down and call it God. But he lacked a theological bent of mind. He'd rather stick to what he had directly observed, and to immediate practical problems. Such as his own reason for being here." (pp. 66-67)
No, he does not have to call ultimate oneness "God."
See:
Two propositions seem intuitively valid: first, that all is one; secondly, that change occurs because opposed forces interact. However, I suggest that energy and inertia are more fundamental than Law and Chaos - and they are definitely preconscious.
See:
Ultimate Social And Cosmic Developments
How to deal with a dragon: throw water in its mouth. (CHAPTER TEN.)
19 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The ultimate origin of all things can only be God. So I agree with Holger.
Ad astra! Sean
The ultimate origin of all things can only be a personal creator? There are philosophical objections to that and other possibilities have to be considered. Besides, Holger just uses the word, "God," which is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. Einstein said that he believed in Spinoza's God which is not personal. No good is achieved by using such loaded terms without further discussion and clarification.
Kaor, Paul!
Those philosophical objections are not convincing.
You are overlooking one thing about Holger: he was raised in Denmark, in our universe, at least formally as a Lutheran. Which means he would naturally think about God as Christians would.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
These objections are not convincing to you! Arguments for theism are not convincing to me. Saying this does not advance the discussion either way.
How Holger would naturally think and what is the truth of the matter are obviously different questions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In the context of THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS it does matter how Holger would be naturally inclined to think and believe. In fact, as the story advances it becomes clear that Holger "Carlsen" was actually a Catholic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, but we are talking about different things. Of course it matters in a novel how one of the characters is inclined to think and believe but I was engaging in philosophical discussion of what he believes.
Paul.
The problem is that Law can never vanquish Chaos, because chaos is always present -- that's how wars start, for example.
Or end -- Prussia survived because Empress Elizabeth of Russia died at 52 and her heir was a bestotted Frederick the Great fanboy, for example.
So Frederick the Great (a very capable man) and his kingdom survived because he 'lucked out', not because of any virtue he possessed.
So Prussia's unification of Germany was the result of a fatal illness in a middle-aged woman a hundred years previously.
If she'd lived, it wouldn't have happened.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul. Understood.
Mr. Stirling: Well, I believe Law will eventually win, due to that being the will of God. But I do agree Chaos will be a part of our existence till then.
How contingent human affairs and lives are! Frederick the Great and Prussia surviving only because his implacable enemy, Empress Elizabeth, died when he was at his last gasp. Our world's history would have been completely different if the Empress had lived a few months longer.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah. Who knows if Germany would have been united? And without that, or with an Austrian unification, things would have been completely different.
And the Spanish Armada was defeated in 1588 because Queen Elizabeth, ably aided by a number of English sailors, had revolutionized the English navy based on broadside firing, rather than a cannonade followed by boarding actions.
The Spanish were still set up for that. They got butchered, by those tactics and by the fireships.
If the Armada hadn't been defeated and had managed to shuttle the Army of Flanders across to England, England would have been doomed.
'twas the English who developed the "truck" shipboard mounting, with four small wheels -- which enabled the gun to recoil, be loaded, and then be run out again. A lot of the Spanish Armada guns were on two-wheel mounts and couldn't be reloaded rapidly.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
My view is that the most likely candidate for a unifier of Germany absent Prussia was Austria. And that might have happened even with Prussia still being powerful if the Austrians and Saxons had won the Battle of Koeniggratz in 1866. Prussia was not that well loved by the other German states!
Considering my dislike for Elizabeth I, I have mixed feelings about the defeat of the Spanish Armada. I think part of the reason for the Armada's defeat was the death of Philip II's most able admiral, Santa Cruz, and being succeeded by the less able Medina-Sidonia.
Understood, how English naval advances gave a big edge to Elizabeth's fleet, innovations which all other navies had to adopt.
Yes, Elizabeth would have been toast if the Duke of Parma had been able to land his army in England. Elizabeth had only a small bodyguard and wretchedly inadequate shire levies to face Spain's army, arguably the best in the world at that time.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: that's my judgment too.
The English traditionally put most of their military investment into their navy -- which made sense.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
One thing I thought very unconvincing about Turtledove's novel of an England conquered by Spain, RULED BRITANNIA, was how he had Philip II keeping the captive Elizabeth in England. Nonsense, even if Philip forbore cutting off her head, the most rational thing to do was taking Elizabeth to Spain. Keeping her alive in England would inevitably make her the focus of plots to rescue and restore Elizabeth.
Yes, it was during Henry VIII's reign that England started getting serious about getting a real navy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Spain had to have a strong army because of its European commitments. England didn't, which was a crucial advantage.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Granted, re Spain and England. But the Elizabethan persecution of the stubbornly Catholic Irish turned Ireland into a strategic liability for England. The enemies of England would repeatedly be tempted to assist Irish rebellions.
And I still think Philip II would not keep a captive Elizabeth in England.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah. I'm partially Scottish by background, and after the Act of Union Scotland made a very, very good thing out of being part of the British Empire. Individual Irishmen did too, but collectively...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, the Act of Union was very beneficial to the Scots.
Ireland was the biggest failure of British Protestants, showing themselves at their very worst in stupidity, bigotry, and brutality down to the first half of the 19th century. With the clumsy mishandling of the Irish Potato Blight Famine the last straw in permanently alienating the Irish.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment