Showing posts with label Mythmakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mythmakers. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Can a Humanist Write Fantasy in Good Conscience?


The Goddess Durga
The Highest-Mother-Who-Has-No-Name
with her star nurseries
      















When I first started this self-publishing effort, I happened to make the acquaintance of an indie author who was a convinced atheist.  This writer abjured fantasy in all forms because of the underlying premise of magic, which assumes a spiritual foundation not grounded in science.  This writer would read science fiction, but  only if it omitted all non-material assumptions.  Since then, I've encountered other atheists who seem to feel the same way.  The most convinced atheist is a fullblown materialist and simply can't allow for anything unexplainable by science.
        Those of you who may have followed this blog since its early days will remember that I'm a humanist. Humanists are by definition supposed to be atheists, but I reject that appellation because my view is more that of the agnostic -- I reject the notion that it's possible to know anything about god or gods, but I leave the possibility open that something beyond the explanatory ability of science might exist.  
       So how does one define belief?  I define it as conviction without proof.  A convinced religionist "believes" that he/she knows the truth, but the fact is that there is no way to prove if that person is right.  A convinced atheist "believes" there is nothing spiritual anywhere, but he/she has no proof, either.  That's why I reject dogmatism (of either the religious or the atheistic variety) and view it as the source of countable wars and evil acts committed against the best principles of right behavior (what I call the Right Way) that are embedded (along with the capacity for evil) in the human consciousness.
       I see humanity as having the capacity to fix things on their own without the intervention of gods, and that is what I mean by humanist. However, while many humanists are atheists, I call myself a spiritual humanist.  I simply state that you cannot know the truth about what might be beyond the ken of science.  Therefore, I have no problem with belief in itself.  My problem is  with those who believe so strongly in their rectitude that they want to force their belief on the whole world,  either through conversion (under corecion if necessary) or by  eliminating those damned recalcitrant sinners, individually or through warfare.
       Consequently, I can enjoy fantasy -- stories with spiritual or magic elements in them -- and I can write such stories.  (And I want to add parenthetically that I realize not all atheists reject fantasy; some simply accept the role of the imagination in human endeavors, suspend disbelief, and enjoy themselves.)  All of my books include some spiritual elements.  I can write in The Termite Queen about a future history of Earth that has rejected religion and lives by the humanist Mythmaker principles, but in the same book I can write about a termite planet that has Seers who are in touch with a Mother Goddess who lives among the stars.  And I can conclude that book with references to Christianity, which I think not everybody who has read the book has recognized.  Kwi'ga'ga'tei the Seer takes the sins of the universe on herself (TheWound That Will Not Heal) and atones for them.  The myths of all religions can be adapted for many purposes.
       Similarly, in the series The Labors of Ki'shto'ba Huge-Head, I retell (among other epics) the Song of Roland.  When I was rereading it in preparation for adapting it, I was struck by how in medieval times both the Christians and the Saracens called each other infidel and how we're still fighting that useless war today -- a war over disparate "truths" neither of which can ever be proven.  So I made the Marcher Shshi and the People of the Cave to be at war with each other over the "truth" of whether the Highest Mother lives in the sky or in the ground.  In the beginning Di'fa'kro'mi the Remembrancer is rather shocked, because he has never encountered any form of worship other than of the Sky Mother, but as time passes, he comes to realize that it doesn't matter which way you perceive the Goddess -- what matters is the way you behave toward your fellow "humans" and how you honor the principle for which the Goddess stands -- in a termite context, the rare and beautiful procreative principle.  I think all this is quite pertinent to our own sad times. 
       My WIP The Man Who Found Birds among the Stars is much more a work of literary science fiction than it is a fantasy and it explores the nature of the humanist future of Earth more fully than I had space to do in The Termite Queen.  But even in MWFB there are elements of fantasy.  We see how religion has evolved into remnant communities that are sanctioned by EarthGov as long as they keep their worship private and don't proselytize.  In some cases Enclaves are chartered by EarthGov, in which communities of religionist believers can operate openly, again as long as they remain within the Enclave boundaries and keep the rules established in their charters. 
       However, I also investigate what might exist in the unexplored reaches of space.  Could there be something unexplainable out there, something that might not want us entering its domain?  Or is the entity only a figment of a disturbed mind?  This is mostly developed much later in the book, but I do have one reader of my unfinished opus who really likes the book but who, as an atheist, has complained that he would perfer I stuck to the scientific, no matter how fanciful my science is, and omit anything spiritual.  Well, I can't do that.  The concept of the spiritual is deeply embedded in the psychology of the intelligent being, and much of the wonder that exists in our lives comes from things we can't explain. 
       I constructed my future history around a group of 20 ethical precepts called the Mythmaker Precepts.  You can read my earlier posts on the topic here under the label Mythmakers in the sidebar, but it's best to start with the first one, Who Are the Mythmakers and Why Do They Matter? and then proceed through the series. The instinctive impulse toward belief  is embodied in the myths that humans devised to explain the world in a time less versed in scientific methodology.  I see fantasy as modern myth (I've stated elsewhere that most significant fiction has an element of fantasy within it [see Defining Fantasy according to TermiteWriter]).  Those myths become metaphors for important moral and ethical considerations; they clothe the deepest insights of modern man in wonder and give those insights a psychological and emotional foundation.  They can teach us and move us and appeal to our deepest selves.

Virgin Mary, Folk Art, Peru
19th century
http://www.arttoartpalettejournal.com/2011/04/exhibit-is-a-us-first/
      

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The Man Who Found Birds among the Stars, Ch. 8 (Pt. 2)


Here is the newest installment of my unfinished novel, The Man Who Found Birds among the Stars, a fictionalized biography of Capt. Robbin Nikalishin, the starship Captain who made the first contact with extraterrestrials in the 28th century (some 2.5 centuries before the time of The Termite Queen).

It's hard to believe I put up the first half of this chapter on April 5.  It's about time I finished it.  This chapter also fits with my series on the Mythmakers, since we see Robbin Nikalishin getting a lesson on Mythmaker ethics.

A list of the previous posts, with links:
Prologue
Chapter 1 The Captain Eats Crow
Chapter 2 How Robbin Nikalishin Got His Name
Chapter 3 The Captain Receives an Unexpected Assignment
Chapter 4 School Days at Epping Academy
Chapter 5 The Captain Takes Command of the Red Planet
Chapter 6 Crises and Decisions
Chapter 7 An Old Love and Another Assignment
Chapter 8 (Pt.1) Robbin Nikalishin and Sharlina Graves [pt.1]

In Pt. 1 of Chapter 8, we learned more of the vicissitudes of Robbie's adolescence at Epping Science Academy, including his first sexual encounter.   In Pt. 2, Robbie has to deal with the repercussions of his escapade and he gets a lesson in Mythmaker ethics from his moral philosophy teacher, Prf. Alise Doone. 
 

CHAPTER 8: ROBBIN NIKALISHIN AND SHARLINA GRAVES [Pt. 2]

(2745, Epping Science Academy)
 
Robbie didn’t go to the dining room; instead he crashed into the Preserve and walked and ran as hard as he could, as if physical activity could turn back the clock and delete this catastrophe.  But it didn’t, and late in the day he returned to campus.  He had cut chemistry lab and another class – Prf. Doone’s class.
Prf. Doone … she taught moral philosophy … she always told her students that if they found themselves in a predicament, they could come see her any time.  She had told him that personally once.
He sure as hell didn’t want to go to the Counseling Center – he’d had enough of that self-righteous bunch of prunes.  But Prf. Doone wasn’t like that.
The Professor’s office had a little window in the door and Robbie could see her sitting at her desk with a study lamp behind her that left the periphery of the room dimly lit.  He worked up the nerve to knock and she said, “Come!”
She was a slightly stout woman with a round face, thick brown hair cut short, and a pleasant Scotts accent, and when she saw who it was, she looked him in the eye.  “Well, Mr. Nikalishin, where were you this afternoon?”
Feeling like bolting, Robbie poised in the doorway.  Then he took refuge in levity.  “Having a crisis.”
“Is that so?” she said, not missing a beat.  “Do you want to sit down there and tell me about it?”
He did so, rubbing his palm across his nose and mouth, clearing his throat.  “It’s just that … something happened … and I just don’t know what to do … how to react … how I ought to react to it.”
“Do you want to be a little more specific, Mr. Nikalishin?”
In a rush, he said, “It looks like I’ve gotten a girl pregnant.”  And he ducked his head, waiting for the onslaught.
But all she did was blink.  “That’s specific, all right.”
He looked up at her furtively.  “Do I have to say who it is?”
“Not if you’re not ready.  But, uh … it’s pretty well known whom you’ve been dating.  Now, that does not necessarily mean … ”
“No.  You got it right, Professor,” he said, dropping his eyes again.
Alise Doone leaned forward a little, folding her hands on her desk.  He sat with enough light on his face to let her see him plainly but in sufficient shadow to give him a feeling of shelter.  There was nothing threatening or judgmental about her level regard, but Robbie rather wished that she would look somewhere else.
“Where was your mind during your sex education classes, Robbie?”
“I don’t know.  I guess it was off in outer space somewhere, Professor.”  Now that she had dropped the formal “Mr. Nikalishin,” she seemed a little less severe.
She smiled slightly, and he said, “I’ve been trying to stay out of trouble – hell, I thought I was doing pretty good.  And she said … she said she wouldn’t tell anyone … she wouldn’t tell her parents – who the father was ….  That was a relief, I can tell you.  But … then she said … that I wasn’t a man … didn’t have the courage of a man … like she wanted me to say … I ought to tell her to tell … ”  He stopped, hopelessly mired in his own syntax.
“You know, Robbie, in our culture you aren’t supposed to be a man at 15 years of age.  But you are supposed to learn from the experiences you have at that age.  So let’s see what you can learn from this one.  Obviously, you feel something is wrong in your willingness to accept her self-sacrifice.  For that’s what it is.  Her parents … and I happen to know them – her mother is a Professor of Historical Studies at Oxkam and her father is a senior industrial chemist for UnionGov … I can tell you he will be more irate over what’s happened than Sharlina’s mother will … ”
Bloody hell, Robbie thought miserably, I didn’t know all that.  I would pick one of the elite-elites to knock up ...
“… and he will certainly make an effort to find out who was responsible for their daughter’s situation.  It won’t be difficult – I’m hardly the only one who knows the identity of Sharlina’s boyfriend.  But should that compel you to make a clean breach of this circumstance?  Not necessarily.  There are much more fundamental reasons for you to be open about this than that you will be found out anyway.”
Robbie sat with his forearms on his knees, his hands dangling, looking up at Prf. Doone.  “I’ll be leaving her to take the brunt of everything alone, won’t I?  If I do come forward, it will make it easier for her, and the consequences won’t be all that bad for me, anyway.”
“Very good.  You know, in 28th-century society the sexes are supposed to be strictly equal and receive equal treatment.  But that can never be, because no matter how you construe it, males and females aren’t alike.  They evolved for different purposes – they each have a different set of hormones that drive a different outlook on life.  They are certainly equally capable in intellect, and every human is entitled to the same dignities of justice and the same chance to survive, but men and women are physically and emotionally different.  And when a man gets a woman pregnant, no trace is left behind for him except what his conscience tells him ought to remain, while she has a changed body, and the physical child to raise, or give away, or kill.”
Robbie realized that, while these statements were not that new to him, he had never before fully grappled with their implications. 
“When you were in Basic Forms, Robbie, you had the reputation of treating the girls more courteously than the general run of boys did.  Is that going to change now that you have the ability to dominate them sexually?”
He looked at her, a little shocked.  “I hope not!”
“Do you think it’s right to make a woman suffer because you are more physically powerful than she is and because your needs are different from hers?”
He sat bolt upright, as if she had jabbed a hot poker in his midsection.  “No!  Bloody hell, no!  I don’t ever want to make women suffer!  That’s a terrible thing to accuse me of, Prf. Doone!”
She regarded him speculatively, as if she sensed some personal experience behind the unexpected vehemence of his reaction.  But she did not press the point, saying merely, “If I were to make the following statement, how would you feel about it?  It’s cruel and irresponsible – and cowardly – to let Sharlina face this revelation alone, without any support.”
He had collapsed again.  “I’d agree with it.  I don’t want to be cruel, Prf. Doone, and I don’t think I’m a cruel person.  So … what do I have to do – go with her when she confronts her parents?”
“I believe you aspire to be a hero someday, Robbie.  This act would be a good start.”
“Oh … What I want to be is a space hero – fly to the stars – be famous and have everybody know my name … ”
“There are a great many other ways to be a hero, Robbie Nikalishin, besides gaining fame for performing some difficult or original feat.  Some of the greatest heroes never left a single record of themselves in the histories.  Look at the Mythmakers.  Not a trace of the name of even one of them exists, and yet their writings have changed the Earth – spurred our culture toward the hopeful place it is today.  Isn’t that a heroic act?”
“I couldn’t have done it that way,” said Robbie.  “Written all those plays and tales without setting my name to them.  What good is it if you do something wonderful, but nobody knows about it?”
“Well … there’s a place for the public hero, certainly – I wouldn’t deny you that.  Robbie, you’ve read a number of Mythmaker works over the last few years – some of them in my classes.  Which is your favorite?”
He thought they were getting off the point, but he said, “Oh, I suppose … Well, I still like The Heath of Angus  I know it’s a child’s story.”
“That’s all right – it’s one of my favorites, too.”  She grinned.  “You didn’t pick that one just because it’s laid in Scottlend and you figured that would please a Scottswoman like myself, now, did you?”
He returned the smile, a little wanly.  “No, I swear.  It really is one I like.”  In a rush he continued, “I also like the novel we just finished – The Seven Idols.”
“Good.  It’s fairly straightforward in its implications.  That’s why I give it to Third Formers.”
“And I’ve never forgotten The Valley of the White Bear, even though I know we read it only in a prose condensation.”
“You’ll get the original dramatic version next year.  I always take my class to a production of The White Bear when we read it – there’s always one playing somewhere ’round.  Let me see, I believe next year it will be at the Lunden Consortium.  That drama is considered one of the most profound and moving of any Mythmaker work, and I agree with that opinion; it epitomizes the philosophy enunciated in the Precepts better than any other single piece.  Do you remember your Precepts?”
Alarmed, he said, “I don’t know that I can recite them right off, without any review.”
“Relax, Robbie, this isn’t a test.  I’m sure you know the gist of their meaning, though.”
“Of course,” he said, trying to sound more confident than he felt.
“And yet I wonder if you really do.  I get the feeling during class discussions that you regard poems and moral aphorisms rather like a mathematical formula – something fascinating but clinical, whose meaning can be worked out to its logical conclusion and then ignored.  Life isn’t like that, Robbie.  Life is messy and chaotic, and you can never solve for all the unknowns.”
Now he was beginning to see where this discussion was going.
“Can you summarize the first five of the Precepts?”
He squirmed a little, racking his brain – that brain that would one day be able to juggle temporal quantum factors with no trouble but forever found moral concepts daunting.  “Those are the ones about the existence of god.  About how we can’t know whether a god exists.  That we shouldn’t depend on a god to tell us how to act but look within ourselves for the truth.  That we must take responsibility for our own behavior – that’s Number 4 … I’ve heard plenty about that one in the Counseling Center, I can tell you!  And the Fifth is …we may never succeed in all that, but we have to keep trying.”
“Yes, striving for right action is its own purpose.  Well, that’s a decent enough summary.  I’m going to cudgel you again with Number 4 because it’s the crux of all Mythmaker thinking: Humans must take responsibility for their own behavior, not seeking to put blame on imposed rules (of deity or human) or on fate, chance, or the intervention or willfulness of deity.  So … what do the unimposed rules of your own conscience tell you?  Do you think your initial reaction in this affair with Sharlina exhibited a willingness to take responsibility for your own actions?”
He swallowed and shook his head, then, to shift the subject, he said, “Why did the Mythmakers put so much emphasis on gods?”
“You tell me.”
“I suppose … because god-worship divided humanity and brought on the Second Dark Age.”
“Well, that oversimplifies the situation a good deal.  The worship of gods, or more correctly, the ferocious fanaticism of dogmatic organized religions, played a major role in dividing humanity and precipitating the Second Dark Age.  Precepts 10 and 11 treat of this in particular, although they have broader implications – The Right Way is universal; the Truth is parochial and divisive … 
“Now, the Precept you’re probably finding most interesting at this moment of your life is Number 14, about making vows of love in the music of the bedchamber, not with empty words.  
”It was under the apple trees,” mumbled Robbie.
Prf. Doone made a little throat noise as if she were attempting to laugh, or trying not to.  “The important word there is vows.  Did you and Sharlina make any vows?”
“No,” he said somewhat disgustedly.  “We just … did it.  There were a few empty words, though.  More like grunts.”
Prf. Doone appeared to be strangling again.  “The point of that Precept is that ceremonial words or contracts can’t make a union holy.  When two people can achieve a truly holy union, it’s a highly intangible and fragile thing, spiritually blessed and very personal and unique.  That state can be called marriage, whether there is a ceremony or not.”
“That never happened,” he said.  “I’m not sure that sort of thing exists.”
Again she regarded him thoughtfully.  “The final five Precepts make up the so-called environmental or biological set, except for number 18, which is sort of thrown in illogically at that point.  But buried in their midst is the one that in my opinion epitomizes everything that the Mythmakers were trying to say.  Which do you think it is?”
Robbie took a deep breath, desperately dredging his brain.  “The one about how humans share a genetic heritage with every other organism on Earth?”
“Well, that awareness is central to the survival of our Planet, of course.  But I was thinking of Number 17 – There are creatures on this planet who speak, form symbols, and share emotions; these may be called human.  The entire thrust of the Mythmaker philosophy is about what it means to be human.  Keep that in your mind, Robbie.  It may not mean so much to you right now, but possibly it may at some later point of your life.”
There was a moment of silence.  Robbie was feeling a little light-headed; he had skipped lunch and now the opportunity to get supper was rapidly slipping away.  “So … I should go to Sharlina and tell her I’ll go with her when she tells her parents.”
“Is that what you think you should do?”
He looked up at her.  “Yes.”
“I can arrange permission for the two of you to leave campus.  I’d be glad to talk to Sharlina, but if she doesn’t want to see me, that’s all right, too.  But, Robbie, there’s something else you have to do.”
“What?” he asked, frowning.
“You have to tell your own mother.  She’ll wonder why we let you go off roaming around the countryside, for one thing.  Besides, it’s the right thing to do.”
“Damn.”  He hadn’t even thought of that.  “Why do I have to get myself into these messes, Prf. Doone?”
“Well, Robbie,” she said, “heroes are noted for being audacious and perhaps a bit over-impulsive.”
He looked at her and then they both laughed.  He stood up.  “I guess I’d better go to Commons before it’s too late to get supper.  Can you … well, could you put in a good word for me to Mr. Tirkle?  I skipped chemistry lab, too.”
“Don’t worry about it.”
At the door Robbie turned back.  “Thanks so much, Professor.  You helped a lot, even though I never can get out of one of these scrapes without having to do a lot of things I don’t want to do.  But – can I ask you one more thing?”
“Shoot!” she said.
“How can you take all this so calmly?  You never twitched a muscle when I said … you know.”
Alise Doone laughed.  “Robbie, I’ve been teaching moral philosophy here at Epping for twenty years – longer than your lifetime.  There’s nothing new anybody can dump on me!  Now, get yourself some supper.  And if you need to talk again, you know where to find me.”
*          *          *
Robbie went to his mother with his heart in his throat, but to his surprise she didn’t react as adversely as he had expected.  She only stood looking at him with an expression that seemed slightly sad and slightly quizzical, and then she said, “I hadn’t realized.  I hadn’t realized how grown up you were getting.”
“Not all that grown up, according to Sharlina and Prf. Doone.”
Sterling smiled transiently.  “So you’re going up to Oxkam and face the girl’s parents with her?  That’s pretty grown up, Robbie.”
“Well, like Prf. Doone said … maybe it’s a step.”
He went away puzzled as to why Sterling’s reaction had been so subdued, but he forgot it in the pressure of traveling up to Lewton, the upscale precinct where most of Oxkam’s senior faculty lived.
Throughout history, the insular lands of Britan had mostly managed to escape invasion, and the period of the Second Dark Age was no exception.  The kind of devastation that had descended on Uropia and on the vast metropolises of the east and west coasts of North Ammerik had been inflicted on only two areas of the British Isles.  Radiant bombing had totally obliterated the ancient central City of Lunden; and the University called Kambridge, where significant scientific research into defensive weaponry had been taking place, suffered several direct hits and was destroyed.  In the years when Robbie Nikalishin was an adolescent, the center of Lunden had already been neutralized and the archaeological work had commenced that would lead to some of the restorations that can be seen in our time.  There had been no work done at Kambridge; it was still a walled-off Devastation Zone, too radiant to be entered.
That was not to say that Britan had escaped other types of Dark Age catastrophes; poison rain, natural plagues, famine, and biowarfare had reduced the population by about half, the same as in most parts of the world.  Hence, even though Old Oxferd had escaped direct bombing, no resources were available to maintain and restore it until about the year 2600.  By that time the buildings had deteriorated so badly that it was considered best to found a new university and create the Historical Preserve of Oxferd and the Old Oxferd Living Museum out of what was left.  That was still an on-going project in Robbie Nikalishin’s youth; parts of the old town and campus were already enclosed in a protective dome, and the Bodley Library was being examined book by fragile book. 
Britan was fortunate in that most of its major libraries had survived, whereas in Northwest Quad, the great national and civic libraries located on the east Ammeriken coast had been reduced to piles of charred rubble.  Thus, for a knowledge of its past Britan was not quite so dependent as the rest of the world on the preservation caches of the Underground Archivists, which were at that time being pulled from their hiding places all over Earth in an exciting game of cultural hide and seek.
The new Oxferd was named Oxkam in order to honor its deceased companion, and all its Colleges were renamed to incorporate a corresponding College of Kambridge.  Oxkam was located halfway between the two ancient sites; its construction was also an ongoing project and is to this day.  The original buildings – utilitarian, bunker-like hulks – were being replaced by structures designed in the ancient architectural styles of Britan.  It made for a delightful milieu, like stepping back into the past but with all the amenities of the New Space Age.
The visit to Lewton was the first time that Robbie Nikalishin had ever been “up,” but he hardly had his mind on architectural grace.  He only knew that the Graves family lived in the grandest house that he had ever entered, except maybe the Headmaster’s residence at Epping.  The Graves’ house was freestanding, with seven rooms and the plushest of upholstered furnishings; and the living area and kitchen were separate rooms.  There was even a dining room, and a little entry hall that was a total waste of space as far as he could tell, as he stood jigging about in that enclosure waiting for Sharlina to call him in.  She had wanted to go in alone at first and talk to her parents privately.
He could hear her father begin to bellow and he felt inclined to renege on his promise and run away, but he did not.  When he was finally called in, Sharlina was crying and Robbie had to endure a tongue-lashing from Mr. Graves that would have withered the apple blossoms on the trees where the ill-starred liaison had occurred. 
Robbie suffered the barrage in silence until the irate father erupted, “You ought to at least pay for your victim’s abortion!  I’ll drag your family into legals if you won’t!”
Panic surged over Robbie and he quavered, “Sir, don’t do that!  There’s no money … I don’t have any money … ”
To that point, Prf. Graves had been sitting there with her chin on her hand and her lips compressed, saying nothing.  But now she stirred.  “Come on, Brayford, ease up!  Look at the poor boy – he’s just standing there enduring everything you throw at him, and his face is red as a geranium!  He comes down here to take his lumps like a man, and all you can do is denounce him as a reprobate and a degenerate Barsilian bastard and threaten him with legals.  Why don’t you shut up for a minute?”
“That’s right!” cried Sharlina, taking courage from her mother’s support.  “I’m trying to tell you it’s my fault as much as Robbie’s!  I wanted to do it as much as he did!  Let’s just get on with whatever it is I’m going to have to do and get it over with!”
And so Robbie escaped, looking much cleaner than he felt, with a minimum amount of damage to his life.  Sharlina had her abortion, her father pulled her out of Epping and sent her to a school in Bath, and that evening in Lewton was the last time Robbie saw her.
The episode left two lasting effects.  Robbie never forgot the conversation in Prf. Doone’s shadowy office that day; it had brought the guiding precepts of the new Earth to life for him and he always tried to live by the ethics of the Mythmakers, even if, as the Fifth Precept stated, humans will never succeed absolutely in achieving these goals.
The other lasting effect was a particular recurrent nightmare that Robbie was never to escape, although as he aged, it plagued him less frequently.  In this dream he stood by a bed where Sharlina was giving birth.  After the baby had emerged, an attendant laid it in his hands, saying in a highly pleased tone, “Here’s your son, Robbin Nikalishin.  Would you like to cut the cord?”
And he took the scissors in his hand and cut, then took the remnants of the cord, twisted it around the infant’s neck, and strangled it to death.
 At that point he always woke up with a yell, drenched in a cold sweat, so he never knew what happened to him in the dream after that.  He was always glad that he woke up, because he felt no desire to discover what the consequences of so dire an act might have been.
 
Next installment:
Chapter 9
Capt. Nikalishin Takes Command of the Ore Freighter Hell's Gate

 

Monday, April 1, 2013

More Mythmaker Comment: Science Is Knowledge; Religion Is Not Truth


       Neil Aplin's comments on my earlier post Beginning My Mythmaker Analysis contain enough interesting material for several responding posts! Today I'm going to address two more of his remarks.

       Let's begin with his interpretation of my statement where I defined " ' ... science with a truer meaning: the hunger for knowledge ...' But I would say that science isn't a 'hunger for knowledge', but rather it's a proven methodology for revealing answers to questions that can be relied upon. The methodology is repeated testing of a hypothesis until a conclusion can be reached, and then peer review to try and disprove it. The 'hunger for knowledge' is just a human characteristic that drives the motivation to use the scientific method to find the truth."
       Here's what I said in context: "By the middle of the 27th century, humanism had prevailed and the concept of the scientific had been changed forever. Technology, which the Mythmakers had called “soulless,” had become subordinated to a science with a truer meaning: the hunger for knowledge."
       Possibly I could have chosen a better word than "hunger," but what I'm doing here is not defining science so much as contrasting it with technology. Precept No. 8: Science has a soul; technology is soulless. (Let's not get into the concept of soul until a later post.) Technology is a tool of science or an instrument of change; it's not a seeker for knowledge in and of itself, and when it is allowed to take control (such as when it's used to invent instruments of war) it can become devastating. Science in and of itself is neutral or even positive -- seeking knowledge is in most cases a positive goal. 
       Here is the derivation of the word science as given in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t :
"1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns ), present participle of scīre to know + -ia"
       While part of the definition of science involves methodology, the word is founded more broadly; at its roots "science" means "knowledge."  In The Termite Queen v.2, Kaitrin seeks for a way to explain to Kwi'ga'ga'tei the Shshi Seer all these little "magic" boxes and gizmos that they use to communicate and to investigate their surroundings.  This exchange takes place:
 
       As Griffen and Trea scanned the crouching Alate’s wings and eyes and ran sensors over her body, she said to Kaitrin, You make your a’tas’zi| upon me
       “We do not call it ‘magic,’” Kaitrin said. “We call it … ” For what was the root of the word “science,” anyway? Knowledge. Systematic, demonstrable knowledge. The Shshi had two words that could apply: preiv’zi|, “something known”; and parn’zi|, “something learned.” “ … a way of knowing, a way of learning. There is much that we do not know and these boxes help us to learn. So you should call them ‘learning boxes,’ not ‘magic boxes.’”
       There are things that you can learn from the Shshi?
       “Oh, yes. A great deal.”
       The thing that we learn most from you is how much we do not know.

       Now here is another of Neil Aplin's comments:
       "You then say " ... Myth and gods are not science; they are faith-based..." Absolutely, again I agree. And basing something on faith rather than evidence is another way of explaining the meaning of the word 'hope' - so something faith-based is that which we hope is true, it's wishful thinking, or fantasy. But just because we hope something is true doesn't then make it true, although I wish this wasn’t the case – if only wishing something could actually make it come about!"

        What we have to consider here is the definition of truth and of faith. I don't see it having anything to do with hope. For example, my computer just crashed! Don't you hate that? -- all your passwords disappear! Fortunately, Blogger saves so frequently that I didn't lose anything I'd written on this post. But it gave me this example: "Gee, I hope my computer doesn't crash!" By that, I mean "I wish" this wouldn't happen. It doesn't mean I have faith that it won't -- In fact, I'm pretty sure it will sooner or later. 
       Faith is something a lot stronger than hope. Nobody ever fought a war because they "hoped" that the cause they believed in was the right one. And faith has nothing to do with scientific proof. It is an irrational, non-scientific belief that something is true. I don't have to understand anything about gravity to "have faith" that the stone is always going to fall downward when it is dropped. Experience has shown me that it will. (Of course, I suppose quantum theory might say that at times it might fall up.)
      (Parenthetically, wishful thinking is not fantasy. "I wish this were true" is not the way people read fantasy novels. While they are reading and absorbing the symbolism, they suspend disbelief. If they don't, it's a badly constructed piece of writing. But that doesn't mean they believe that fantasy embodies scientific truth or conditions that exist in the real world -- that's a serious mistake and can lead to people shooting up movie theaters and schools, or jumping off buildings because they've become convinced they can fly like angels.)
       Anyway, that's not my point. When people say they have faith in god's existence, they aren't just hoping the entity exists, they really believe it. And nobody can prove they are wrong. Neither can they prove you wrong when you say you don't believe god exists. God is an unknowable entity. 
       And if people choose to believe, they should be allowed to do so, just like the atheist or the agnostic should be allowed to "believe" what he or she wants. That's why we have freedom of thought and freedom of religion in the present day, and paradoxically it's why the Mythmaker philosophy banned the open practice of religion, because equating religion (defined as an organized belief in a unified body of orthodox dogma) with Truth is an oxymoron, in my opinion.

Precept No. 10. The Right Way is universal; the Truth is parochial and divisive.

       The problem is that many people believe so strongly that their religion embodies the one and only Truth that they want to suppress or destroy everybody who doesn't believe the same thing. An uncountable number of wars over the centuries of history have been fought over these truths, causing an incomprehensible amount of misery, destruction, and death. So believe your own truth -- your own faith -- but keep it to yourself and live peacefully, listening to the inner moral directives that come from being human (the Right Way).

(A disclaimer: I can't say I feel really qualified to be discussing such esoteric topics, but I feel strongly about these things, so I plan to keep right on pontificating!)






Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Mythmakers: Some Responses to a Comment

       I've had some interesting comments by Neil Aplin on the earlier Mythmaker posts (see the comments here) and I need to respond, so here goes!  It was about time I wrote a new Mythmaker post!  This is rather hastily composed, but I'm going to post it today anyway (without a serious proofread).

       Mr. Aplin writes: "Just because man’s internal sense of right and wrong doesn't preclude the supernatural, it doesn't necessarily mean that the supernatural must therefore exist." 
       My response: Neither I nor the Mythmakers say that man's ability to discern what is right proves the existence of god or the spiritual, only that there can be no proof that god or the spiritual doesn't exist. That is Precepts No. 1 ("No one can know deity; neither can it be proven that it does not exist")
and 3 ("Since the purpose of deity for humans, or even whether it had a purpose for humans, is unknowable, it is incumbent upon humans to look within themselves and find the way to right action"). 
       I refuse to be a full-blown atheist, because I think a lot of them to be just as closed-minded and bigoted as the most hot-headed religionists. I find Richard Dawkins to be like that.  I don't even particularly like the term "agnostic."  These terms suggest fixed beliefs with no room for growth or development or change or novelty -- the very opposite of scientific! It seems to me that there will always be something beyond what science can teach us -- beyond the Big Bang, beyond what came before what came before that -- but we will never know its nature.  Therefore, it could come in any form.  That's why  we can write fantasy.  A true atheist couldn't write fantasy because it would go against his belief in the supernatural.  It would be a travesty to have spirit beings or gods working miracles in a book.  A true atheist should have a big book-burning and get rid of every allusion to anything spiritual that has ever been written.  Throw Tolkien on there, because his elves cannot be scienfically proved to exist!
 
       Mr. Aplin quotes me as saying "Myth and gods are .... a truth, which the individual recognizes by some instinct built into the genes."  But the full text of what I said is this: "Myth and gods are not science; they are faith-based. But by that very nature, they can't be proved to exist; they can be neither denied or proved true or real. They can only symbolize a truth, which the individual recognizes by some instinct built into the genes." "Symbolize" a truth is different from saying they "are" a truth.  When symbols are used, as in poetry or literature -- or myth -- it gives us a deeper insight into what is reflected or embodied.  By "built into the genes," I'm talking about the need of the evolved human brain to explain the world in which it finds itself.  I remember reading somewhere that there may be a genetic component to this need.  Non-human creatures don't seem to be able to explain the world through symbols or to have a need to do so (well, bower birds do have a certain artistic capability!) 
       Gradually these primitive symbolic explanations (such as Zeus hurling thunderbolts) become replaced with scientifically provable facts.  But again, there is always that point beyond which we cannot go.  Therefore, we can write fantasy or construct mythic systems -- we can satisfy our need for symbols by embodying the unknown in our personal creations, and by gaining deeper insight through those creations.  I consider all religious writing to be mythic in nature, including the Bible (or perhaps especially the Bible).  I'm not against religious myth; I'm only against dogmatic religious institutions that proclaim they have the one and only Truth and want to force the entire world to believe as they do.
       So -- maybe infinitely huge entities exist, inhabiting a plane of existence or a dimension we can't even conceive of (see my short piece "A Little Laboratory Work"), playing soccer with comets and using the entire universe as a laboratory.  Maybe malevolent beings lurk out in deep space -- beings who don't want us out there (that's in my Man Who Found Birds among the Stars).   
       And maybe there really is a big Termite Queen (see at left) who fills up the sky with the mighty creative force of her belly, lays the stars from her ovipositor, and occasionally meddles in her creation.  I can have this Goddess talk to the Seers among those who worship her, even though Earthers have become humanists and don't believe in her or any other god.  Or maybe humanity believes more than they realize.  Decide for yourself after you finish v.2 of TQ!

This is enough for now.  I've only touched on Mr. Aplin's remarks.  I'll get back to more of them at another time.








Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Review and Analysis: The Children of God, by Mary Doria Russell

       Earlier I wrote an analysis of The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell, and now I've finished reading the sequel.  In Goodreads, I gave it 4 stars, while I gave the first volume 5.  While I found the book rewarding and a must-read for anyone who wants to complete the story of Emilio Sandoz, there are certain reasons why I didn't enjoy it quite as much as the first volume.
       In the beginning I thought I might actually like the sequel even better because we learn so much more about the fascinating alien species that Russell created. However, certain technical details about the book make it a more difficult read.  The Sparrow jumped backward and forward in time, but there were only two basic time sequences and it was done in a very controlled and orderly way.  In Children of God several different time periods are involved and in some cases chapters are even broken between two times because the sections are too short for a whole chapter.  It's difficult to ascertain where particular happenings fit in relation to previous chapters.  A table of contents would help, making it easier to see the shape of the timeline at a glance.
       Because of the large geographic sweep of events, a map of the Rakhat lands in question (perhaps showing some of the migrations) would also help the reader to get a visual picture of events.
       As a writer myself, I get the sense that in The Sparrow Russell was writing from what I call inspiration.  I would bet anything that she had the whole story conceived in her head and all she had to do was transcribe it.  In Children of God, I sense more improvisation, more tentativeness.  It's as if she were thinking, "I've got to finish Emilio's story, but what should happen?   Well, this might work and this, but I'm not sure -- I'll have to try out some things ... "  She may have had the ending in mind (the essential business with the music and the DNA) and certain other events along the way, but a lot of the filling feels improvised.  She keeps introducing new characters with only a brief role in the plot.  And the end feels rushed to me, as if she were saying to herself, "This is getting too long -- let's hurry and get it over with."  And while the fight between the two champions was skillfully described, there is a sense of futility about it rather than a truly epic struggle, and the war that follows seems like a blip, important only for its outcome.  Of course, she is not really trying to write epic fantasy here, but rather philosophical and psychological speculation, so emphasizing the battles to a greater degree would likely be superfluous.
       In the author interview at the end of the book, Russell talks about how Chapter 21 was the hardest to write.  In it she summarizes 20 years of Rakhat history.   She says, "I rewrote that chapter a dozen times ... I tried a straight historical narrative and that didn't work.  I tried a lot of stuff, but ultimately the least bad solution to this narrative problem was to convey the information in a conversation between the two canniest political minds in the story. ...  It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best I was able to come up with ... "
       Well, I can certainly empathize with that!  What she's doing is breaking the rule of showing and not telling, but frankly I don't really subscribe to that rule!  Sometimes showing would require a whole novel in itself.  For the sake of brevity, you have to tell certain things.  In my Termite Queen I used a chunk of 8 printed pages to summarize 900 years of Earth's future history. Certainly there was no way I could put that whole history in narrative form, and it would feel highly artificial to have two characters sit down and discuss it in that much detail.  So I simply chose to put it in a knotty chunk, which readers can skim or even skip if they want to (although I don't recommend doing that!).  It was the "least bad solution"!
      Now, I must touch on the theology and philosophy, because I think Russell achieved her purpose. In the author interview, she speaks about needing to solve Emilo's dilemma: "Either God is vicious -- deliberately causing evil or at least allowing it to happen -- or Emilio is a deluded ape who's taken a lot of old folktales far too seriously. That may not be good theology, but at the beginning of Children of God Emilio believes those are his only choices: bitterness or atheism, hatred or absurdity."
       Russell always works from the premise that  there is a God who has a purpose for us.  The almost inarticulate Isaac enunciates to Sandoz the ultimate conclusion here: "It's God's music.  You came here so I could find it," thus revealing to Emilio the purpose for his suffering: that the fact humans and aliens are all children of God could indeed be "proven" through a scientific construct.  Even though I don't work on that premise, there is a similarity between that statement and my Mythmaker Precept No. 19: Take joy in sharing your genetic heritage with all the bio-organisms of this planet, and of the universe.  My statement is less lyrical, but the idea of the music of the spheres being encapsulated in the DNA of all biological organisms is strikingly similar.  So even though my premises are humanist and I don't try to maintain that these things were "God's purpose" (something I feel we can't prove), nevertheless I can see a strong connection here between what Mary Doria Russell is trying to say and what I'm trying to say in all of my own writings.  In my world, Emilio would have a third choice -- to view both good and evil as coming from the inner nature of humanity and of those who share in the qualities that make us human -- those who have evolved the power to reject evil and find the Right Way within themselves.
 

Monday, December 17, 2012

Mythmakers: Precept No. 9: Conduct Your Wars with Words, Not Weapons

       I've been reading many blog posts discussing the school shooting in Connecticut since that terrible event took place and I had had no intention of contributing anything to the mix.  However, it seems the right time for me to discuss the Mythmaker philosophy as it relates to the gun situation.  Opinions are all over the map.  The weapons advocates are yelling, "Arm all the teachers!  Let anybody who is a threat be blasted into hell, because they're worthless, anyway!  That's the way to stop violence!"  [Really?]  And the other side is yelling,  "Legislation to control guns is the only answer!  Enforce stricter controls!  More background checks!  Get rid of guns!"
       Now, I tend toward the latter viewpoint, I confess.  Personally, I have no use for guns and would like to see them out of private hands altogether.  But achieving that goal is not practical.  And what is the Mythmaker position?
       (Just a quick parenthetical remark on the 2nd Amendment.  I consider it antiquated.  The Constitution was written over two centuries ago.  We no longer need a "well-regulated militia" of civilians because we have a standing army.  Even the Pope changes the laws of the Catholic Church from time to time.  And that is supposedly "sacred" law, while this is man-made!) 
       Two of the Mythmaker Precepts which apply here are as follows:
 
No. 9: Conduct your wars with words, not weapons.
No. 15:  Evolution has failed to structure the human organism for moderation; nevertheless the ability to recognize and strive for this virtue distinguishes human beings from other animals.
[Corollary:  The human organism is not innately a peaceful animal, but its ability to recognize and strive for peace sets it apart from other animals.]
[Corollary:  Moderation promotes peace.]
 
       What is the situation in my future history? -- the period that comes after Global Unification in 2690?  I'm going to quote from an earlier post of mine, which can be read in its entirety here:
 
        "On my future Earth there are no nationalistic boundaries. Earth is united and while administrative regions exist, freedom of movement is universal. No passports, no visas. One currency. If you come from Scandinave and you want to work in Ostrailia, all you have to do is buy a ticket on a flyer, disembark, find a place to live, and go to work. People may be encouraged to move to certain parts of the planet in order to equalize the distribution of the population, but nobody is forced to do that. And it's true that everybody has an ID number so the Demographic Authority can keep statistics, but each individual has only one such number for the whole planet.
        "There is no army because there are no countries to fight one another, but there is a Terrestrial Security Force (known as TeSeF [pronounced "Tessef"] in the 28th century.  ...  The primary function of TeSeF is keeping the peace -- police work, basically -- making sure that the planet remains a safe place to live. TeSeF members do have access to guns (which have become energy weapons by the 30th century), but they don't always carry them. Private gun ownership is forbidden. Now, I can hear the outraged screams, and I can hear people saying, "Boy, that situation is really ripe for abuse!" but the Security Force buys into its role and it works. And without guns in the general population, the opportunities for murder and mayhem are reduced (you never get rid of that sort of thing entirely)."
 
       You see, after the planet nearly destroyed itself, both environmentally and through vicious warfare, people began to buy into the idea that we must have no more war.  But wars can be fought between two people or between one person and a group, which is what happens in these mass slaughters that are becoming frighteningly common.  So how do we stop or at least minimize this sort of personal war?  How do we achieve Mythmaker peace and moderation?
       First, I want to say, none of this can be achieved with a snap of the finger or by yelling that we MUST DO SOMETHING.  It's a bit like the decline in tobacco use or the partial elimination of racism -- it requires a social and cultural attitude change, and that sort of change comes very slowly, through example, through education, through (regrettably) the natural attrition of the older, more rigid elements of society.  People have to be taught to settle conflict through words -- through talking --and not through warfare, through violence.  And unfortunately, the trend right now seems to be in the other direction -- toward a culture that worships violence in all forms -- that makes games and entertainment out of explosions, car crashes, displays of bloodletting and exploitation and, most of all, shooting of firearms.
       It could be that we really must endure a collapse of civilization before we get our heads on straight and permit the moderation that Precept No. 15 discusses to gain the upper hand and give us a peaceful world.
 
       However, there are some things we can do right now.  We can start with small steps.  Nobody in this country, or perhaps in the world, would allow the government to confiscate all the millions of guns that are in private hands.  We really would have a war on our hands, wouldn't we? -- if the government tried to do something like that!  But we could pass legislation to ban future sales and possession of the type of weapon that shoots multiple rounds -- the assault rifles and handguns.  If you have to stop to reload after 6 shots, you can't kill as many people.
       One of the most fearsome aspects of  guns is that they kill at a distance.  If Adam Lanza had gone into that school armed with a machete and a baseball bat,  could he have killed 26 people in a few minutes?  I doubt it.  If he could have even gotten in without shooting out the glass, he might have killed three or four or possibly a few more than that, but somebody surely would have taken him down before he killed 26.  Instead, I believe I heard that those guns were in his home; he had easy access to them.  Nobody should have assault-type multiple-round-shooting guns in their home, even if they lock them up.  If somebody is breaking into your house, do you need to spray them with 50 bullets?  Six would do the job, even if you were a novice and had horrible aim.
       The next small thing that could be done is to ban the production for commercial sale of assault weapons that shoot multiple rounds.  Let the hunters have their hunting rifles and let the police have the weapons they need to keep the peace but keep careful track of those weapons.  Make possession of guns a privilege rather than a right.  Close most of the gun stores.  Make them like the medical marijuana dispensaries; space them out at wide distances.  Make people have to go farther to reach them.  Maybe make background checks mandatory when people buy ammunition.  And keep careful guard on military weapons (since we're centuries away from eliminating warfare).  They should be destroyed when their use in warfare is finished and never allowed to enter general circulation.
       Then let these changes settle in.  Keep it gradual.  Don't try to solve all problems at once, with sweeping, extreme, hysterical legislation (moderation, remember, moderation!)  People have to get used to change.  After a number of years, people will not only be saying, "Remember how people used to go around with smelly cigarettes hanging out of their mouths?  Wasn't that a nasty thing?  How did we put up with it?" -- they will also be saying, "Remember when everybody thought they needed to tote a gun in their pocket for self-defense?  What a scary scenario that was!  How did we ever put up with it?"
       You start small.  Nothing changes right away.  But a century from now the world would be a safer place.  In the meantime, you educate, you teach people to talk and not fight, to work in a rational and responsible manner, to take responsibility for their own actions, to recognize that all humans are the same species and have the same right to live an unthreatened life.
       And one additional note: We need to recognize what is stated in Precept No. 5: "Humans will never succeed absolutely in achieving these goals; nevertheless striving for right action is its own purpose."  Humans will always be imperfect and that includes those imperfections called mental illness.  Compassion is the key here.  You don't lock up every person who exhibits aberrancy -- that would be to return to medieval times.  But it isn't compassionate to keep guns where unstable or even just immature people can get their hands on them.  It makes killing too easy.  Do everything possible to minimize the availability of guns and terrible events like those that happened in Connecticut and Aurora and Phoenix and elsewhere will surely become rare rather than commonplace.
 
Click here to see all my Mythmaker posts, in reverse order.