Before departing, I had begun to reread The Anubis Gates by Tim Powers. On the opening page of this text, we read:
"...the old man turned around to watch the sun's slow descent. The Boat of Millions of Years, he thought; the boat of the dying sungod Ra..."
-Tim Powers, The Anubis Gates (London, 1986), p. 11.
This reminds us, obviously, of Poul Anderson's title, The Boat Of A Million Years.
Hieroglyphs shining from ancient papyrus:
"...were written here in the world's youth by the god Thoth, the father and spirit of language itself."
-ibid., p. 16.
This might remind us of:
"This was Language herself, as she first sprang at Maleldil's bidding out of the molten quicksilver of the star called Mercury on Earth, but Viritrilbia in Deep Heaven."
-CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength IN Lewis, The Cosmic Trilogy (London, 1990), pp. 349-753 AT CHAPTER 10, 4, p. 587.
"For the lord of Meaning himself, the herald, the messenger, the slayer of Argus, was with them: the angel that spins nearest the sun. Viritrilbia, whom men call Mercury and Thoth."
-ibid. CHAPTER 15, 1, p. 687.
The Boat Of A Million Years is hard sf with a mythological reference in its title.
The Anubis Gates is a hard sf-fantasy synthesis: scientific laws work in some times and places whereas magic works in others.
The Cosmic Trilogy is a soft sf-fantasy synthesis: some beings are both extraterrestrial and supernatural.
(Lewis is hopelessly Platonic: "Language herself"! Human beings created language, not Mercury/Thoth. All meanings are arbitrary. None are "...inherent..." (p. 587))
Powers' description of a time traveller's perception of London in 1810 reminds us of Poul Anderson's description of two time travellers' perceptions of London in 1894. Historical sf.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
If Tim Powers' had pub. THE ANUBIS GATES after THE BOAT OF A MILLION YEARS it might have been possible he took it from Anderson's book. Of course, they were both using the Pharaohnic Egyptian THE BOOK OF THE DEAD, with Anderson quoting the Theban recension dating from the XVIII Dynasty.
I have Budge's annoyingly obsolete version of THE BOOK OF COMING FORTH BY DAYLIGHT, its more accurate title.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: states expand their influence as far as they can. That's always been true.
Indeed. States are instruments of coercion. As long as they exist, they will have that dynamic.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, but sometimes there are States content not to expand as far as they possibly could. E.g., France, after losing the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, gave up all hopes of conquering Europe. And the US, unlike TR in your BLACK CHAMBER books, has not tried to conquer Mexico or annex Canada.
Paul: We have States, with their instruments of coercion, because human beings are so prone to being quarrelsome, strife prone, and violent. Without the State we get the war of all against all. And that is not going to change.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have states because, without such means of coercion, the conflict of material interests between the controllers of the means of production and the rest of the population would destroy social order. There will no longer be any need for a state when socially controlled advanced technology produces abundant wealth that can be equally distributed. In those conditions, people will no longer quarrel or be prone to strife or violence any more than I would now spontaneously attack my white neighbour on one side or my Muslim neighbour on the other side for no reason and with no provocation. We often live peacefully now and will be able to live more peacefully in a better future.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. We have states because human beings are quarrelsome, strife prone, and often violent. I don't believe in vague fairy stories "about socially controlled advanced technology" because such a thing is an impossibility without a State to control and enforce it. Iow, just the same failed old socialist one-party bureaucratic despotism of the kind we have seen over and over and over.
Human "needs" are infinite, but the resources needed for satisfying them are finite and will never be enough to satisfy everybody. Because there's always going to be some who are not satisfied.
Wrong, peace is possible only because of the State, with its monopoly of the means of violence. And that means punishing those who don't want to be peaceful. No State and gangsters and fanatics will have a free hand to do whatever they want. And many do already.
Your hopes are totally unrealistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree for the reasons I have stated.
That is not a vague fairy story! It is what we can do with technology controlled by a fully democratic society where everyone participates and benefits and no one is a dispossessed outsider needing to be controlled by a state.
There is no need for sneer quotes around needs. They are basic and resources are infinite in the universe. There are not going to be those who are not satisfied when we all have more than we need.
Wrong. There is peace now between many people who do not have to be coerced to be peaceful. I do not advocate abolishing all state functions here and now! But conditions CAN be very different in future. Yet again, we have been through all this before.
There is something very wrong with this uncompromising denial and endless repetition instead of reasoned consideration of arguments that have been repeatedly presented about how society has changed, continues to change and will definitely be very different (for good or ill) as a result of technological advances in future. To deny this is to deny the whole point of sf.
Paul.
Gangsters and fanatics! Look at the real concrete human beings around you on your street and in your neighbourhood. They do not suddenly become gangsters or fanatics in a vacuum and for no reason. There are gangsters only when there is hoarded wealth which they try to steal. There are fanatics only when there are socioeconomic conflicts resulting in hostility between groups which therefore defend themselves and define their collective identities in terms of sets of ideas or beliefs so that some think not just of attending their own place of worship but also bombing someone else's. It is perfectly possible to have social conditions in which people of different beliefs live peacefully side by side without becoming fanatical about anything.
Your gangsters and fanatics springing up out of nowhere and for no reason in ANY social conditions, even the most peaceful, prosperous and culturally tolerant and inclusive, are a dangerous fantasy.
BTW, I reply to show that I can reply, not in any expectation of agreement! If this exchange continues, then it will recycle the same assertions indefinitely.
Yeah, but that was true - before- the invention of the State, too. Tribes and clans extended their power as far as they could.
Sean: President Polk was stiffed by his envoy to Mexico; he wanted to annex the northernmost tier of Mexican states, and was furious when Nicholas Trisk ignored his instructions. If Trisk hadn't, the northernmost tier of Mexican states would have been incorporated in the US.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Let's clarify an important point: a democracy, any democracy, is merely a means of trying to solve the problem of how to transfer power peacefully. It's a means of persuading ambitious, power hungry men craving power and office to be content doing that counting noses, instead of just shooting their way to power. And works only as long as everyone agrees to abide by the rules. Meaning I don't share this faith you have in the magical efficacy of democracy--that only wise, noble, and saintly people will hold power.
Second, I remain totally unconvinced that any kind of socialism, with its magical claim to manage "technology controlled by a fully democratic society" will ever exist or work as you claim it will. It still boils down to politicians and bureaucrats incompetently trying to run things from the top down.
Good, I'm glad you have peaceful neighbors. But it's a dead certainty not all of them are like that. It's the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence, which keeps them in line, sometimes. Back in April, I checked the crime statistics for the Lancaster area, and it was 58 crimes per one thousand. Most of them crimes of violence, including sexual violence.
Yes, "gangsters and fanatics"! We both know organized crime and political/religious fanatics of all kinds exist. No State and they WILL wreak havoc.
Mr. Stirling: Oh, certainly! Because of you I did learn of how President Polk wanted to impose harsher peace terms on a defeated Mexico, and ordered his envoy, Trisk, to demand that of the Mexicans. But what I had in mind was not 1847-48, but of the mood seen in the US some 70 years later. By the 1920's, at least, I don't think there was much interest in the US about gobbling up part or all of the rest of Mexico.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let's clarify one important point. Democracy is not "merely" anything. It is the fullest participation in discussion and decision-making even in societies, organizations and communities which are possible and which exist in which there are no ambitious, power-hungry men craving power (instruments of coercion) and office. "Counting noses" is an insult to people who think, debate and decide. Democracy is not "magical." You keep inserting these insulting adjectives! This seems to be the only way you can express disagreement. Have I said that only wise, noble and saintly people will hold power? People will. And if "power" means ability to coerce, then we can build a society where all public office-holders are accountable and where they no longer control bodies of armed men with which to coerce a population but I absolutely refuse to go through that argument yet again.
Socialism "magical"? Again the dismissive terminology. Can we discuss on a higher level than this? - if we really do have to keep discussing this, that is? You remain totally unconvinced of any kind of socialism? I know you do. You have said this. I have also said that I have completely given up (if I was ever doing it) trying to convince you of anything. But this message does not seem to get through. If you remain unconvinced, which we both know that you do, I will not respond to this by redoubling my efforts to convince you of anything. Why should I do that? But this seems to be the response that you expect.
A fully democratic society does not still boil down to politicians and bureaucrats incompetently trying to run things from the top down any more than our competitive global high tech economy still boils down to local hunting and gathering tribes but your imagination completely fails to grasp the "hard facts" of social CHANGE and of potentialities implicit in the social (no longer billionaires') deployment of advanced technology.
BTW, this is not an attempt to convince you of anything, just a demonstration that I can reply on every point. But these points have been made repeatedly before and I have replied to them repeatedly before!
I do not deny that gangsters and fanatics exist now! I do not advocate the abolition of all state functions here and now! I said that in my last comment. You are not responding to what I am saying. There is something very wrong with this entire exchange. Are we going to keep saying this over and over again? Have I asked this before?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are at an impasse about human nature, politics, economics, etc. Best to end this discussion.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment