Tatiana Thane looks to what she calls the transcendental, not the supernatural, and claims that her Cosmenosis is a philosophy, not a religion. These are words. In fact, with no evidence, she expects the Builders to return and heeds the rumours of a forerunner even though such rumours are, as she acknowledges:
"'...forever driftin' in on desert wind...'" (p. 130)
Of course that wind plays its role!
I would advise Tatiana: continue to practice science and meditation and don't listen to rumours! Consider what you know scientifically about the Builders/Elders/Ancients/Forerunners and their artefacts and go no further than that unless and until you find new evidence as Axor tries to do. He hopes to confirm an explicitly religious belief but Flandry is right to fund his research. Who knows what will turn up? I know the answer to that question: something completely unexpected.
Today is Sunday. Attend church and/or worship/contemplate in the temple of earth and sky.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I basically agree, Tatiana Thane would do better to focus on what little can reasonably deduced about those Ancients from the scanty evidence.
I would have argued with Fr. Axor that since the Catholic Church believes that the Incarnation/Passion/Resurrection of Christ on Terra was/is infinitely sufficient, there was no real need to search for evidence of Him becoming incarnate on other worlds. Because if the Church decided non-humans could be baptized and become Christians that question would seem rather moot, as I discussed in my "God and Alien in Anderson's Technic Civilization" article. But I would have no objection to Fr. Axor searching for evidence of Christ's Incarnation on other worlds or for Flandry arranging for him getting financing for it.
Btw, today is the anniversary for what happened to "him of Sarajevo" in 1914--and all its baleful consequences. And "rumors" reminded me of the all too apt line from the Scriptures about "wars and rumors of wars."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, if that hadn't happened, WW1 might not have occurred at all. The world would be unimaginably different. Might be better -- that's the way I'd bet -- but it might be worse, too.
Eg., the way WW2 ended with a nuclear bombardment encouraged a nuclear stand-off. If nuclear weapons had been invented by both sides and used...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! No Sarajevo and there might have been a far better world--or maybe not I should reread your "A Slip in Time."
I shudder at the scenario you suggested, both Hitler and Stalin getting nukes by 1944-45. A desperate Hitler would certainly have used nukes to devastate the UK and the USSR, with Stalin doing the same to Germany.
Fortunately, the least bad alternative, a nuclear standoff, is what we got. So far!
Ad astra! Sean
Nuclear standoff is less bad than a lot of alternatives, but I don't think that is the least bad alternative. How about a fairly democratic world government getting established *before* nuclear weapons are known to be possible.
Kaor, Jim!
For any--remote--chance of that happening there would first have to be no Sarajevo and hence no WW I. No WW I means swine like Lenin--and similar swine in other nations--not rising to seize power.
But, really, even assuming no Sarajevo and all its consequences, I don't see proud and independent minded great powers like France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the UK, US, Tsarist Russia, etc., voluntarily surrendering enough of their sovereignty to make some kind of global federation a reality.
Ad astra! Sean
Jim: a democratic government requires a democratic set of values... which are not common.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But even Tsarist Russia was starting to go down that road, becoming more democratic, because of the Constitution of 1906. No Sarajevo could have meant no WW I, and no Lenin grabbing power in Russia. Russia might have evolved into a mild constitutional monarchy.
Lenin would have ended his days a ranting nonentity. Hitler might have become an artist or architect.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah, Lenin had a run of "luck". Bad luck for everyone else! And Hitler would have been a wandering, poverty-stricken loser in a peaceful world.
I concede my notion is very low probability. To get anywhere close to that alternate history an earlier Point of Divergence would be needed. Perhaps a peaceful resolution of the disagreement between Britain and its colonies in N. America in the 1770s. Then a bunch of other favorable but low probability events. Leading to a British Empire/Commonwealth with much of the world being British Dominions having local self government & a say in foreign policy.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: How I wish something had happened to prevent Lenin from being injected like a plague bacillus into Russia!
I agree it's far more likely a Hitler who lived in a no Sarajevo world "...would have been a wandering poverty-stricken loser." I was thinking of how Albert Speer discussed in his memoirs the intense and serious interest Hitler had for architecture.
Jim: I agree, a timeline where the American colonists/UK managed to resolve their disputes before any irreconcilable split occurred might have led to a far more powerful British Empire/Commonwealth. See, e.g., Turtledove's THE TWO GEORGES.
As so often Anderson touched on similar ideas in some of his stories. Here I mean the Hoka stories co-authored with Gordon Dickson. I thought of how
"The Sheriff of Canyon Gulch" has a quote from Adalbert Parr's ORIENTATION MANUAL discussing how the accession of the US to the British Commonwealth made it so powerful that it became the core of a United Commonwealths unifying the world.
I wish more readers would pay attention to Anderson/Dickson's Hoka stories.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment