Funky Fresh with P.Diddy J

2006-12-11T09:33:00.000-05:00

Morals

What i thought to be interesting, and something not really discussed in class, is that in a society whith unlimited resources and endless backups of lives, does conventional morality exist? What is to stop someone from going on a killing spree just because they can? The people they kill will be fine, just reborn a few hours later, minus the trauma of dying. Indeed, with the odd sort of envelope pushing sports the people of the masq hub like, i could imagine it becoming a new sport, the new version of Lava rafting. Getting killed clubs would sprout up all over the place. There could even be versions of it like that mini story the greatest hunt or whatever it was called with humans being the prey. Why wouldn't there be hunting clubs set off to kill people, or sniping clubs, set to kill people remotely, suddenly.
The reason we don't kill people in normal morality is because we have been taught it's wrong, and we've been taught that because to us, death is final. Not so with the Culture. Death is merely an inconevnience if you so chose. WIth the endless ablility to hit the "do over" button, anythin can be come allowed, because anything can be undone. The only moral taboo in the culture seems to be the raping of a sentient persons mind, a thought invasion, the only part of a being that truely matters. The body can be rebuilt or changed, the mind is forever.

This has been a great class, and I've enjoyed most of every minute of it. Thank you to my classmates and Prof. Jackson for making it so enjoyable.

2006-12-11T06:07:00.000-05:00

First of all I must say that I rather enjoyed the part in class where we solved the triangle problem despite the fact that I forgot most of the principles we used to solve it many years ago. Having said that I find it interesting that in class we never touched on the whole issue of the Culture's intervention in Chelgrian society. It seems like something we should have jumped on given the ominous similarities to the United State's involvement in Iraq, but since we didnt I will endevor to discuss here. There are of course obvious differences between the example of Chel and Iraq. For starters the Culture didn't invade Chel as we did in Iraq, but I still think an attempt could be made at drawing a parallel. Both examples saw a major power interfere in the affairs of a much weaker state with the best of intentions and in both cases things did not go exactly according to the plan. In the book a viscious civil war erupted amongst the Chel and in Iraq the same perhaps could be said (I dont really want to get into the political squabbles over the use of the term civil war. Suffice to say things are not so good there now). However I think the key difference that I mentioned earlier between the intervention on Chel and the intervention in Iraq really hampers the efforts to draw effective parallels. I think that the Culture's intervention on Chel is closer to the old style great power moves of the great powers in the 19th century where they would influence the smaller nations but do it all unofficially. They would not have any formal control over these small countries they would just be in their "spheres of influence." All of which was just a fancy way of saying that they really were in fact under the control of whichever great power whose "sphere of influence" they were in.

Going of the theme of great power politics this book reminded me of some of what I have learned in my Modern Revolutions class. In class we learned how the great European powers began to penetrate and intervene in the civilizations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East in the 19th century. The Europeans were much more powerful than these other civilizations and were able to dominate them and extract various concessions from them. This in turn lead to nationalists to despise the West, but they were not powerful enough to take on the Europeans so instead they went after their own governments and vented their frustrations on them via revolution. I sort of see the same thing with the Civil War on Chel. The Culture intervened and the Chel took out there anger on their government through the civil war. Of course this is far from a perfect parallel since the Chel did not even know the Culture had meddled in their affairs until after the civil war broke out, but I think the end result is somewhat similar.

Essentially in my mind the whole issue of the Culture meddling in Chelgrian affairs reminded me of the interventions by both superpowers in smaller countries throughout the Cold War and the interventions of Europeans in non-European states throughout the 19th Century. Although really the truth is stronger states have meddled in the affairs of weaker ones since the dawn of time. It is in my opinion a very interesting topic and one that I wish we had had more time to discuss in class.

2006-12-10T07:36:00.000-05:00

Well, that was an interesting last class.

On a totally unrelated note: humor.

Okay, now that I've poked fun at Trekkies, back on topic.

Actually, let's run with that. What the devil is wrong with these freaks? Subsuming their (as far as anyone knows) one real life in their obsession with the fantastical creation of someone else's mind, learning Klingon and the code of Vulcans; are they the epitome of the social leech, not even able to take charge of their own passtimes, or are they just deviant? Same question about World of Warcraft players, and anyone else who spends a significant portion of their time engaged in a fantasy world. What is wrong with these people, that they turn away from real reality to a fantasy one?

Note that this isn't quite the same question as the one we discussed in class: What is the difference between heaven, World of Warcraft, and the life backed-up Culture citizens lead? I'm concerned with the relative value of "real life" measured against fantasy lives of all sorts. Why do we as a society think less of a twenty something year old who makes just enough to support his WoW (or crack, whatever) habit and pay for food and rent, than we think of a Horatio Alger type Master of Mathematics holding computer programmer? Certainly, mainstream society rewards this type of personality, and glorifies it, to some degree.

But then we've got movies like Fight Club, which reflect ennui (in the movie, insomnia) and discontent with the worker bee role, and The Matrix, whose popularity must have been in part due to identification with Thomas Anderson, and a desire to be similarly called to a life that, though dangerous and uncomfortable, is at least interesting.

Of course, the popularity of these movies is, interpreted differently, just an indication that there are a lot of half-disconnected individuals out there. The question remains unanswered, except in the fact that survival and propagation is due to being connected to physical reality, not electronic, emotional, or spiritual fantasies. If WoW addicts have children or an impact on anything outside Azeroth, Lordaeron, Kalimdor and Outland, it is because they disconnect from the game long enough to take the time to eat and raise a family. So, is there anyone out there who can prove that survival is worth the effort?

2006-12-08T11:44:00.000-05:00

Not only was the last class really fun but this has definitely been one of my favorite classes at AU. That said, I'll move on to Look to Windward:

Maybe I just can't imagine what a world would be like without scarcity and without inevitable death, but I think that life in the Culture would be less satisfying than mine is now. I think that I feel pleasure in my life because I also feel pain. I have negative emotions to compare my positive emotions to so that I know when something is good or bad. If I lived in the Culture I would be the one lava rafting and not teleporting out at the last minute because I think that rushes of fear and discomfort are necessary for happiness. I also do not think that I would want to be stored in a soulkeeper because coming back to life as only a mind is only half of the human package. I think that I would be depressed without a body.

To extend this same thought process to Chel, their institutionalization of heaven and religion is a wonderful commentary on the role that religion plays in our society, today. Religion is hope, faith in something greater than us that both "gives" us a system of ethics and allows us to feel that if things are not going well now, that if we are good they will go well later (if not on earth, in heaven). Faith is no longer necessary in a world without scarcity because there is no need to believe that something greater will either help you out of your current situation or allow you access to heaven because there are limited situations where you feel that you can not solve your problems. Scarcity breeds problems that you alone can not solve and this, I think, is why so many people turn to religion (in our society today). Soulkeepers have become faith and replaced religion. The need for a higher being has been replaced by the idea that advanced science can remove death and uncertainty. In our society today, religion helps people deal with uncertainty. With soulkeepers there is no more uncertainty, you know that you can "live" after death and that you can go to "heaven". I think that Quilan has faith because the certainty of his wife's soul being stored was lost. He can no longer believe that science will save him because he feels extreme pain. Quilan, in a way, understands why people have faith in a higher being in our society today...to help save us from the uncertainty, despair, and scarcity that we can not deal with. Quilan wants to die not only because he is unable to recover from his wife's death but because he can not believe in the system that has been created to institutionalize heaven and remove certain death. He can not continue to live in a world that can't support him emotionally.

2006-12-06T13:27:00.000-05:00

I think that the structure of Culture is interesting in that it is called a democracy but it is really a society controlled by all-knowing, ever-accessible minds. In the novel Kabe, Zillner and the avatar had a discussion about Culture as a democracy when they were talking about the building of the cable car system. Mr. Latry wanted to (and did) build the cable cars. There were people for his idea and people against it and groups were created and votes occurred. They eventually settled on an "agreement" but Mr. Latry basically won. The avatar made two comments about the dispute, (p. 237): "they had a name by this time; always a bad sign" (in response to groups naming themselves on either side of the debate) and "Believe me; democracy in action can be an unpretty sight." (in response to the whole voting situation). The Culture in a sense is the perfect democracy because people are happy (with unlimited resources) and they are free and have a say on issues that they feel are important (in the cable car instance), but instead of having to deal with manipulative politicians who are always trying to "sell" issues and viewpoints to them citizens of the Culture instead have an impartial, all-knowing, god-like computer system that can solve problems and in a sense not bother the population with political issues. The population is not told about the threat that Quilan posed to the people of Culture, because it is not necessary (because the Hub removed the 3 objects that Quilan displaced). So is this better, that the culture "knows" who the enemies are and how it should act and so it in a sense doesn't involve civilians in any sort of policy or manipulation about how they should feel about the other. If Quilan had tried to destroy 10% of the population of the U.S., for example, our politicians would have manipulated the situation to make us hate the responsible "other". Is it better that the essential policies of the Hub are unknown or not necessary to be known to the citizens of Culture? Does this make Culture more humane to the "other"? It seems as though the Culture can appear to be humane and accepting of "others" especially because it has a few ambassadors living on Culture. However, the reason why people like Zeller and Kabe are called ambassadors is because the Culture wants them to go back home and talk about how great Culture is. Also, by the Culture having such great technology and doing most of its action in secret it is actually able to manipulate the other so that the Culture can benefit. I really enjoyed Look to Windward and I think that it can be used as a great tool to look at contemporary society and the "other".

2006-12-06T12:36:00.000-05:00

Hmm, as well writtin as Look to Windward is, I must admit that no particular theme jumped out at me. There is the thread of personal responsibility to one's parents, in the form of Ziller's relation to his species. There is the question of justice and vengeance, in the great scheme to destroy Hub. There is the question of Major Quilan's motives, his desire for a useful death (and who can entirely resist the allure of such a romantic end? Very Norse, that). There is even the question of whether the hypothetical plot by the rogue Minds might, on some level, be reasonable (justified is another question), in that the Culture really does seem a decadent and bourgeois. . . culture. I think this last point is the most compelling, in part due to the title of this week's discussion.

What happens when we eliminate scarcity? The people of the Culture seem happy, intelligent, well fed, and rather shallow. There is Uagen Zlepe, scholar, who breaks this trend, and his impassioned moment. "I'm Culture, he thought to himself. This is what you're meant to do in such a situation. This is what it's all about." Is this passion and verve a product of Uagen's personality (he is a scholar on a mission even before the novel starts, unlike any Culture individual we see), or is it one of his circumstances? This is, when humans are given enough of everything, do they retreat into virtual reality and games mania, with a few oddballs pursuing greater lives, or do they recognise that happiness is the only meaning in an empty universe, and would all go to the lengths Uagen does, were they called to duty?

Also: in case people read this who don't read PTJ's other blog:
http://profptj.blogspot.com/

2006-12-06T00:39:00.000-05:00

One of the most interesting aspects in Look to Windward was the concept of backing up. I found the idea that you could be able to save a copy of your mind state and after the death of the body be able to bring yourself back whenever you like both intriguing and disturbing. I find it disturbing because it seems like this would cause problems. I mean people have to die. Otherwise you run out of resources and space, although I do realize that Banks basically solves this problem by giving his society infinite resources and infinite space in the form of well space and basically the ability to create worlds. Also I find it somewhat disturbing from a religious standpoint. It just seems to me that humans and really all living beings are supposed to die and when it becomes possible to repeatedly cheat death and effectively live forever that just seems wrong to me. Yet at the same time the whole idea is very interesting, perhaps exciting is a better word, becaue it seems that the ability to cheat death has been one of mankind's greatest dreams since the dawn of time. Having said all that I feel that if I was given the opportunity to back myself up I dont think I could resist that temptation. The other interesting thing about backing up is that in the Chelgrian plan to destroy the hub they said they expected five billion to die. Yet, four billion of these are backed up copies of people's mindstates. They arent actually physical bodies. So 80% of the people Quilan is expected to kill are actually already dead.

Another interesting issue is the whole cause of the Chelgrian Civil War. Everyone keeps talking about how it was the Culture's fault that it happened, but I really disagree with that assesment. I think it is unfair to lay the blame for the war soley at the feet of the Culture. Yes, perhaps their interference helped set things in motion but it did not cause the violence all by itself. Personally I think three thousand years of societal oppression based on a rigid caste system had much more to do with that. It seems to me that the Culture wanted to stop the war and they felt that the best way to do that was give the Chelgrians a common enemy so they claimed to have started the war (for those who balk at my use of claim, I am not saying that they didnt interfere but I think the claim of starting the war is a gross exageration), and the Chelgrians jumped at this idea because they didnt want to take the responsibility for what they had doen to themselves.

A final point I wanted to make is that when reading about the Idiran war I was struck by its resemblence to the Pacific theater in World War II. It mentioned that the Idirans were on the offensive in the early part of the war and maybe great gains and that it was all the Culture could do to retreat in an orderly fashion. This seems to me to be just like the Japanese initial attack in the Pacific where they gained much ground and the US was pretty much in full retreat. Then the Culture began to bring its massive industrial capacity to bear and it threw the Idirans back. This is just like how the United States turned the tide against Japan thanks to our superior industrial capacity. Finally the Culture demanded unconditional surrender, just like the United States did, and the twin novae I thought were similar to the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The one key difference here is that the Idirans destroyed the two stars and in my reading they are the Japanese who most certainly did not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2006-12-04T01:05:00.000-05:00

For starters I completely agree with Jeesh in one of his most recent posts (http://envisioningfall2006.blogspot.com/2006/12/tempting-fate-with-all-of-adrians.html). In it he mentions that he is surprised that the US did not respond to the explosion in NYC by assuming that the Soviets had launched some kind of attack and responded in kind. This would of course have caused the Soviets to launch their missiles and instead of preventing nuclear war Veidt would have started one. I think this is a perfectly reasonably assumption on Jeesh's part. I mean really which is the more logical assumption for the US government to make: an alien being just destroyed half of New York City or the Soviets just destroyed half of New York City. Add to this the fact that Soviet troops were in Afghanistan and that the US was worrying that the Soviets were preparing to make a move into Western Europe, and it becomes only logical for the United States to assume they had just been on the recieving of a Soviet nuclear strike. Although it is true that the US would not have seen the missile launch on the radar (because of course there wasnt any launch) they would probably have still assumed that the Soviets just nuked them. It probably would have been very similar to the Tom Clancy novel (not the godawful movie of the same name that butchered it) The Sum of All Fears where terrorists set off a nuclear explosion in Denver and the Americans assumed it was a Soviet attack. The point is Jeesh is right and it is amazing that he didnt accidently cause a nuclear war.

Another interesting topic that came up in class was the difference between superheroes and the SWAT team. After all they are somewhat similar in that they both have more firepower than the regular police. Yet as we discussed in class they are different. I also think we managed to hit the nail on the head in class when it came to the difference between the two. In class we mentioned some form of accountability when it came to the SWAT team but not with superheroes and I think this is a large part of the difference. I also think (and I cant remember if we mentioned this in class) that oversight is another key difference. There is definite forms of oversight over the police and the SWAT team, but not over superheroes. There is no one to stop them from doing whatever they want. These are really the key differences. I also think it is really interesting how Watchmen draws attention to the fact that superheroes are really just vigillantes and can pretty much do whatever they want to. This is not something you normally think of but it is true. There really is no form of oversight or control over Superman or Batman. I like how Watchmen really makes you think about the role of Superheroes. It definitely shows them in a rather dark light especially in the form of Rorshach and the Comedian. They both do whatever they want including breaking the law to accomplish their ends and I personally find that distrubing. And yet this is sometimes what Batman and perhaps sometimes Superman do as well it is just not what most people think of when they think of Superheroes.

2006-12-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

From Watchmen:

NOVA: Returning to your costumed career, why did you quit?
VEIDT: There were a number of reasons, but I suppose it basically boiled down to my increasing uncertainty about the role of the costumed hero in the seventies. What does fighting crome mean, exactly? Does it mean upholding the law when a woman shoplifts to feed her children, or does it mean struggling to uncover the ones who, quite legally, have brought about her poverty?

I think this is the "other" key problem presented in Watchmen, besides "Kill few or let many die?" Essentially, this question is one of conflicting realities. Veidt here clearly thinks that, the law aside, it is not particularly wrong for a woman to shoplift to feed her children, but it is wrong to impoverish her in the first place. I, for one, agree with him, and not just out of a general feeling of sympathy for the woman; rather, I feel that the well being of children is the responsiblity of the entire community, and when a community is derelict in its duty, anyone has the right to step in (if only she were stealing from the government, I wouldn't have any problem with her at all).

But the law of the United State of America, as well as those of the fifty states, is fairly clear in its opposition to Veidt and myself. Shoplifters are prosecuted, and leniency, while probable in the case of a mother stealing food for her children, is just that: mercy granted to the condemned. As a rule, and by the letter of the law, America and Columbia hold that the woman is the criminal, and her opressors virtuous.

So, let's assume that in a given situation, let's assume that we will *do* something: let's assume that we are superheroes. One of us is walking down the street, and sees a woman furtively skulking out of a store, when suddenly a loaf of bread falls from out her coat when the small boy she's walking with pulls at the food. She picks it up and looks around to see if anyone noticed, making eye contact with us. What do we do? I think that depends on what you have seen of the world.

The Comedian, amoral, having seen the joke; who knows? Laugh and shoot the kid? Try and blackmail the woman in some way? The Comedian is the most free character in the story, unconstrained by any concern with ethical absolutes, much less uncertainty over what those absolutes are. This makes him the ethical equal of a bugger, pre-xenocide. We have no real idea of what makes the Comedian tick, and this makes him far to dangerous to live. The one caveat, however, is that even the Comedian doesn't find Veidt's plot funny; apparently Edward Blake has limits.

Rorschach has also seen the joke, but not as such. More than any other character, I think Rorschach sees, but does not observe. There may be no moral order but what humans inscribe on reality, but at least what we write should make sense, no? Will you praise the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but condemn the destruction of New York? Will you rescue a woman from being attacked, but break the fingers of a drunk in a bar who insulted your hygiene?

Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre neither see the joke nor make conclusions about ethics, so of course, they come off as arguably the most sympathic characters in the novel. Charming, that the sex toy for the superweapon and the paunchy, confused Batman impersonator are the closest thing to normal people we can find in this all-star crowd. What does it say about us that our best representitives in the Watchmen main cast are probably the ones least able to make up their minds about the ethical implications of shoplifting?

Jon is an ethical null - if your reason for preserving human life is that each one in individually unlikely to occur, go investigate some star somewhere. May it give you satisfaction.

And then there's Ozymandias. Whatever you think of him or his actions, Adrian Veidt is the most morally developed character in the story. He has dealt with Rorschach's problem and inscribed the protection of humanity as a whole onto the blank moral slate of reality. He has heard the Comedian's joke and decided that he will save the world, though it be a mad one. He has shaken off Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's half-hearted dabblings in superheroics, and takes the greatest means to accomplish the greatest ends. And he doubts, he knows that he is damned. Veidt knows, at least in dreams, that he is swimming towards the ship of the damned, and says as much to Jon. This, I think, is what redeems, that he goes beyond redemption, for the sake of humanity. We are bought the chance for Heaven with his passage to Hell, the world tree Yggdrasil might grow after Ragnarok not because Veidt fought nobly as an einheriar, but because he was content to die a murderer, and let his spirit be passed over by the valkyries.

2006-12-02T23:25:00.000-05:00

I started thinking about the psychiatrist's role a little bit more and it seems as though he may be present in the story to show us how different the normal person's perception of crime and reality were very different from the masked superheroes' sense of reality. Let me clarify. The psychiatrist was changed by Rorschach, in that he became hardened to violence that people normally can't even talk about. When he had to sit through dinner with the couple and his wife and he was asked about the crazy things that he was learning about Rorschach he just told them what Rorschach told him. He did not censor the violence, he just told them that Rorschach had investigated a kidnapping where a little girl had been fed to dogs. The couple and his wife were horrified and the psychiatrist did not really understand why. He was becoming sensitized to violence in a way that all the superheroes were. Although they did not cause violence unless they thought that it was necessary, violence to them was part of a calculation. Rorschach saw things factually...child was killed so must kill the kidnapper so that he has justice. There were no feelings involved in this evaluation and action for Rorschach. The rest of the population would find it hard to get past these feelings and see the situation as simply: problem and solution. It was this same "superhero" type line of thinking that led Vedit to set a fake alien on NYC. Vedit saw a problem (nuclear war) and believed that he had a solution.

2006-12-01T18:11:00.000-05:00

Suicide Bomber

The suicide bomber presented in this book is given a highly sympathetic view point, and unlike other works, Quilan follows through with his intentions rather than having a moral crisis and baulking his mission. Quilan is presented in such a way that you really feel for him and his pain, and while you may not agree with what he is planning on doing, why he is doing it, or who is ordering it done, you do not dislike him as a person. This is a viewpoint that is rather unusual, the separation of the bomber from his act, the man from the terror. Quilan is also very unusual in that he is not a believer in the cause. He is just a very depressed person with nothing to live for. This makes his situation not only tragic, but also perhaps makes it easier to like him, to separate his actions from who he is. Quilan does not fuly beleieve in the cause, in what he does. However, he also is doing it rather than killing himself. He is killing 5 billion because his lack of care for his own life enables him to take it so easily. The book spearates the bomber from the act, but the bomber was ideologically spearate from the act to begin with.

2006-12-01T17:17:00.000-05:00

Tempting Fate
With all of Adrian's intelligence, what I found most surprising was his dismissial or noncomprehension of the possibility that instead of reacting with peace feelers, the US would not just immediately assume the NYC explosion was a convert Soviet attack and fire missiles. Given the high state of alert Nixon was on, as well as the general fears of the nation, I would not have been surprised to see an immediate response to the unknown with a violent lashing out. If there was a large explosion that knocked out 1/2 a city, comminication is going to be knocked out and a little chaotic. Given that launched missiles take fifteen minutes tops, I can easily see the command structure launching in response to the opening salvo and hoping to catch the Russians before they launched more...and the Russians would see the launches and fire their own. Mutually assured destruction was a deterent because no one thought that missiles would fly on either side, but the horrors that theory contained were dependent on no missiles flying, no explosions occuring. With such an attack on US soil, missiles will fly, and we would all die, a horrible death. The "peaceful" ending I found really implausible.

2006-11-29T11:21:00.000-05:00

Tenuous Peace
Beyond the morality of the issue of what Ozymandius did, does he truely believe that the artificial peace he constructed will hold together? If the only thing holding people together is fear of the unknown, of something that cannot be seen, or felt, only feared for its return, I cannot imagine that this peace will hold. We don't really have a compairable situation, but something we can compare it to is terrorists. Most terrorists are the unknown, the other, to the average American, as well as to the average world citizen. Solidarity with America held for a time, but later broke down, be it from previous disagreements or dislike of current American actions. And this was against a threat that can be seen, can continue to be seen, and is an ever present threat. Possibly some would support the aims of the terrorists, while you cannot support the actions of an alien who's motives are unknown, but even with the danger, people disagree and break away from each other do to conflicting goals and how people try and accomplish their goals. The unknown destructive force can only hold people together for a short time, like how a tsunami or a hurricane will hold people together. The fear of the unknown will fade and people will continue to fight each other, because at the end of the day, person one is starving and person two is wasting enough to feed a village. Fear is not enough to bind people together, especially fear of the unknown. People will put aside fear of what they cannot see and cannot face when reality strikes them to the ground.

2006-11-29T01:29:00.000-05:00

I greatly enjoyed Watchmen, although I must confess that I didnt much care for the ending. For starters, I believe that Veidt's plan to promote world peace and end the hostility of the Cold War is flawed. I believe that once it became apparent that there is no imminent alien invasion then the two superpowers would revert back to their old hostilites. After all, Veidt tried to provide a common enemy to get the Soviets and the Americans to work together, but once that enemy is defeated or disappears, which I think will happen very quickly as there was no enemy in the first place, the old hostilities return. There is nothing upon which to base a cooperative relationship. There are many examples, both historical and fictious to illustrate this point. One example is in Ender's Game where once the buggers are destroyed the Russians and the Americans immediately go to war. Another more persuasive illustration of this point can be found in the beginnings of the Cold War. During World War II the Americans and the Soviets were allies, but the only thing that they had to base that alliance upon was the mutual hatred of Nazi Germany. Once the Germans were defeated the alliance collapsed spectacularly and the Cold War began. It is really easy to insert aliens in the place of Germans and it is easy to see how the thaw in the Cold War that is in place at the end of the book will very likely be shortlived.

Another issue I had with the ending was that Veidt's plan called for sacrificing three million lives to prevent a nuclear war that might not even have happened in the first place. This is one huge gamble to take. He knowingly sacrificed millions to potentially save billions more and from a moral standpoint I have issues with this. Not only that but in a large respect he personally helped cause the current crisis between the superpowers that is in the background for most of the novel. He managed to do this by driving Dr. Manhattan from the planet. It seems pretty clear to me that the Soviets would not have moved into Afghanistan if Dr. Manhattan was still on Earth.

I also found the idea of Dr. Manhattan as a God figure very disturbing. He essentially had God-like powers and even talked about creating new life at the end of the novel. The reason I found this so disturbing is because he struck me as so apathetic toward living creatures throughout the novel, as Laurie says he understands everything but people. True, he does finally agree to save the world, but I still get the sense of apathy from him. He doesnt really care about people at all, and this is a concept I find frightening in a God figure. I like to think that God does care about us and is concerned with our well being and that he doesnt just sit up in heaven and watch, never lifting a finger to do anything to help.

Finally, I just wanted to say I really liked the alternate history that existed in the world of Watchmen. I found it especially interesting how they implied that the Comedian assassinated JFK on Nixon's orders, and that he also killed Woodward and Bernstein. I also found it interesting that the Soviets still invaded Afghanistan (albeit about 5 years behind schedule) and that the US still had problems with the Sandinistas in Nicaraugua. Although I must say that I really can't imagine why Nixon would want Kennedy killed unless maybe he was just really bitter about the 1960 election. I also dont think that Nixon would have been popular enough (even assuming he led us to victory in Vietnam) to overturn the Presidential two term limit. But all of this is really just an interesting side note.

2006-11-27T14:02:00.000-05:00

I think that it is interesting to see how Jon and Rorsharch differently judge Adrian's actions. Jon realizes that life has meaning when he considers "thermo-dynamic miracles" such as oxygen becoming gold and that out of all the possibilities of individual humans that could develop people who seem to have a purpose or are special in thier own way do develop. He judges Adrian's action as meaningless and stupid because although Adrian created momentary global cooperation his actions do not matter in the greater plan for humanity. Jon kills Rorsharch because he feels that at that moment in time ignorance (of the true origin of the attack) will maintain more peace. Jon wants to see that the human race survives but he knows that it will never be in complete peace, because that is not the nature of humanity. Rorsharch believes that what Adrian did was wrong and that for justice to be served that people need to know the truth. I think that Rorsharch represents an idealist and Jon represents a politician who thinks that ignorance will create more peace and that civillians do not always need to know every detail of events.

It is interesting that both Adrian and Jon want to make their own species (Adrian w/ the attack "alien" and Jon says at the end that he may create his own life), which is part of their solution to helping humans. Adrian uses his alien creation to kill half of NYC and to try to prevent nuclear holocaust. Maybe Jon will create life that will help humans- even though he will probably only do this if it is part of the greater plan of humanity. (Because Jon discusses how there is no future or past but only destiny and how humans have trouble understanding this concept because they think in terms of time and don't see that, "the whole design is visible in every facet." (Ch. IX, p6)) Both characters are also referred to as God by people who idolize them. Jon is seen as the ultimate advantage that the U.S. has over the world (although Adrian predicts that changes that Jon instituted such as electric cars would have happened anyway) and is thought to be God. In the interview that is held with Adrian, the reporter remarks that every girlfriend he has had recently has wanted to have sex with Adrian because he is remarkable and God-like.

I thought that it was really interesting that an alien was needed to unite the human race. Schmitt would be happy that to prevent nuclear holocaust for a few years all the people of the world had to do to stop fighting was find a new enemy (aliens) in the friend/enemy distinction.

2006-11-23T12:45:00.000-05:00

Okay, Watchmen has way too much character development and too many themes to deal with

So, if you could prevent nuclear war and thereby save the lives of all flora and fauna on this green Earth by killing the million New Yorkers (Yorkans? Yorkese?), would you? This is the question Adrian Veidt faces in his fantasy world, and I don't mean the one Alan Moore creates in "Watchmen."

Though it isn't important to the deeper philosophical question of Adrian's dilemma, it behooves us to remember that Adrian does not save the world from nuclear holocaust. What he does is try and guess what will drastically lessen the chance of nuclear holocaust occuring in the foreseable future. History shows that even without the appearance of a giant, exploding, mind-flaying pseudo-alien in Manhattan, the world works its way out of the Cold War. The decision is not kill the few or let the many die, it is kill the few or let the many work things out for themselves.

Now, the deeper question, the one that Veidt thinks he is really answering, is of the morality of directly killing some number of people to save many, many more. The first way I see to answer this question is through the traditional Kantian response: if you kill the few, you are treating them as a means to an end, and this is impermissible. This is how Rorschach reacts to Veidt's plot; never compromise, even in the face of armageddon.

Then, of course, you can be Adrian Veidt, who is so blithely arrogant that not only will he save the world, he will lead it toward utopia (Ch XII, p. 20), and a bargain at the cost of three million lives, as many wounded or driven insane, and bad dreams for sensitives the world over.

I'm not about to choose sides, philosophically, when Mill and Kant have argued better than I can, though I tend to think that in the moment I would come down in favor of Veidt's choice. My last words are just for pointing out that an Objectivist might have something to say about the situation as well: nuclear armageddon would probably hurt Veidt, so it concerns him, so he has teh right to stop it by whatever means he desires.

2006-11-20T12:01:00.000-05:00

Individuality

When does one person speak for an entire civilization? Very rarely I would think, yet in class Sophia, and in the book, Suupari were both seen as symbolic or condemining all of their race. This onerous position also fell upon Askama, who was radically different from the militant force the Runa could become.
Individual variations and motivations for actions certainly exist and no one being can be seen as pefectly representing a society as a whoe, but how much can they represent dominant themes? Sophia, Suupari, Reukui, Isaac...perhaps not so much. Askama, i would say yes, before the change. How much credence can be given to the actions of one as representative of the whole? Why do people assume what is seen as an ambassador will truely show the character of the whole? Why, because we have nothing else to go on.
People think in such a way because they lack experience. With further contact and with meeting various other members of the society, a truer picture is presented, beyond what is either carefully cultivated or what is inadvertanetly stumbled upon. But, if you lack that experience, the one meeting is all you have to go on. So grip it and ride with the times, but understand that your understanding is very limited and could be very flawed.

2006-11-20T01:32:00.000-05:00

Both the previous two posts have dealt with the issue of whether or not it is right for humans to interfere in alien societies. I think that this is a very important issue, because not only is it important to the novel, but it also has implications in international politics (although here alien simply becomes foreign countries). I am definitely more inclined to agree with SymbolSix in saying that it is alright to intervene in alien societies. I think that he has an excellent point when he states that the members of those societies do not have to follow our lead or advice. They are free to choose either their old ways or the the new ways that were brought to them. Or at least that is the way it should be. Admittedly I feel that the deck was stacked pretty heavily in favor of the new ways in some of the examples SymbolSix mentions, but the ideal still remains one in which the members of the alien society are free to choose their believes for themselves.

I can understand the concerns over cultural contamination, but once again I agree with SymbolSix in that cross cultural contact has happened thoughout history. In fact, I would maintain that the free exchange of ideas and practices across different cultures is a key ingredient in progress. If you cut yourself off you will never develop. Trade in both goods and ideas is essential for a healthy society. I think that the example of China vis-a-vis Europe in the modern period demostrates this point rather nicely. China was the only power in the region and so had no one to recieve new ideas from. As a result of this China stopped developing around the 1400s and so when the Europeans came in force in the mid 19th century the China they found was not much different from the China of the 15th Century. Europe, on the other hand, was a land of many different powers (and I believe you could argue that there were cultural difference there as well although not as pronounced as between Europe as a whole and China) and therefore they were in constant competition. This meant that they were always competeing with one another and trying to out do the other. Ideas flowed between the different nations and they learned from one another and all greatly developed. This allowed the European nations to surpass China and come to indirectly rule over them, even though the Chinese had been so much more advanced in during the Middle Ages. Thus, the effects of interfering in other cultures does not necessarily have to be negative. It can cause moderniztion and other beneficial things. In fact Western interference in China, Africa, and Latin America has indeed led to modernization and "progress." Lest I be accussed of trying to whitewash the whole sorry history of colonialism I do freely admit that those countries paid a high price for this modernization and "progress." Still I think it is important to remember that interference is not all bad and I think it is better than total isolation. And if you are against interference it stands to reason that you would want to support total cultural isolation. That is after all the only way that you can truly be sure that you are not somehow interfering in any alien societies cultural.

Also I feel that if you support a policy of total non-interference similar to the Prime Directive of the Federation, then you run the risk of allowing terrible tragedies to occur. For example what would you do if say you were witnessing genocide on some alien world. Would you just stand back and watch simply because you dont want to interfere and impose your values on others? Personally I do not think that that is an acceptable response. In such situations I think interference is required and therefore I can not support a policy of blanket non-interefernce. I do not think it is a very good policy. I don't think interference has to be a bad thing and sometimes may even be necessary.

2006-11-19T12:20:00.000-05:00

I disagree with the conclusion of Brett's argument; namely, that we should try not to change or interfere in alien societies. Regardless of biological difference, my natural reaction is that the difference between a sentient and a nonsentient being (i.e. between a "person" and an animal) is that the sentient being has an agency and responsibility that the animal does not.

Intelligence is the thing that gives beings the capacity to want and to direct, as well as to take ethical responsibility. If a tree falls in the forest, and it crushes a mime, we can feel badly for the mime, we can analyze the causes of the tree falling, and we can even establish that it happened because the roots had been eaten out by termites, the wind had blown the tree to one side, and that gravity had brought the whole thing crashing down on our unfortunate performer. But we do not feel anger at the forces of gravity, we do not blame the wind for blowing, or termites for eating; at most, we rage that these things happened in such a way as to kill the mime. However, if a lumberjack came and cut the tree, taking the place of the wind or the termites, we would bring him to trial and establish innocence or guilt of manslaughter or murder - we would hold him responsible. We would take into consideration the fact that it is a lumberjack's profession to collect lumber, to cut trees. If it seemed he cut this particular tree in line with his normal daily activities, not knowing the mime was there (or perhaps knowing of the mime's presense, but not knowing the white manniquin was a human being and not a prop), we would almost certainly exonerate him. From this, I would argue that if we assume an Other to be a person, we can assign the Other responsibility.

I contend that not only can we hold anyone to any standard we like (what's to stop us?), but also that there is some standard of ethics that we should hold any intelligent being to. Assigning different moral standards to different species encounters the same problem as assigning them to different races within the same species, or difference individuals. At the most physical levels, there are no ethics (there is no physical law that prevents or hinders murder), and if morals are different for different groups, they become voluntary, and we lose any ability to judge the Other at all. If we cannot recognise Them as similar to Us in some way, if They are totally alien, if we cannot assign Them responsibility, They have lost in our eyes the most intrinsic quality of personhood.

So how can we reliably judge the Other? I would say that the standard to which we can hold all responsible people is illuminated by the harm principle. Assume that individuals (Other or our own) have the right to do something, unless it harms another, and when two (or more) individuals consent to something, no one is harmed, even if we observes would never consent to the same (i.e. prostitution and other victimless crimes are not, in fact, crimes). In any case, the Other does not have the right to harm any one of us, but we can assume that they can the right to act as they please, otherwise. Still, if the Other harms one of us, but did not know we were people at the time, we should judge them leniently, the way we judged the lumberjack. If there are two Others, and it appears that one is harming the second, obey the harm principle and intervene if the second wants you to (of course, communication becomes a major issue, and miscommunication could foul things up mightily, but that is a technical problem to be overcome).

Now, as to noninterference in an Other civilization, I think this is a rather silly proposition in the long term. If you recognise the Other as a person, you recognise that they have responsibility and agency equal to your own, and that you run as great a risk of cultural contaminaion as they do. Throughout history cultures have been coming into contact with each other and exchanging ideas. The ideas of individual rights and democracy are now practiced in India, South Africa and Japan, nations as culturally distant from Athens, Rome, Paris and London as any on earth. If we recognise the Other as a person and equal, we recognise that they have self determination. At that point, sheltering them from human influence becomes an act of paternalism, a metaphoric pat on the head and unjunction to go live peacefully, away from the corruption of human culture. Christian missionaries in the Americas did not destroy indigenous culture and religious values, the converts who choose the Christian God over the traditions of their ancestors did; missionaries only spread information. The Prime Directive is a doctrine born of condescension.

2006-11-18T10:50:00.000-05:00

I think that Brett has a really good point in that humans are always so fast to judge things that we dont understand by our own morals (http://winshipenterprise.blogspot.com/2006/11/runa-dish-best-served-cold.html).

I want to extend this to ask if maybe this is the point that Russell is trying to make about morals and religion. Religion gives people a specific moral framework that should be abided by because this moral framework is given to people by God. Maybe if a person derives their morals from religion and God than it would be harder to abandon these morals and accept that another sentient species would have different morals (that are equal or better than a religous human's morals). When a person encounters a different sentient species and their morals are rooted in religion then maybe it would be very hard to assume that God would not want this species to abide by the same morals as well. We saw in Todorov that knowledge did not necessarily lead to befriending the "other". However, I think that if knowledge is placed in conjunction with an effort to understand the perspective of a person or other species that is opposite from yourself then acceptance of otherness is possible and there is less of a desire to eliminate or change the other.

On a different topic, I think that Rakhat would have changed even if the humans had not gone there. It probably would not have changed exactly the same way but change would have occurred. Kithiri was already instituting many new ideas and the Jana'ata 3rds felt oppressed by their role in life. Even Supari was different from most Jana'ata thirds in that he was friendly with Runa, knew their language, and seemed to care about them more than other Jana'ata.

I don't want to encourage violence or claim that genocide/ethnic cleansing are in any way necessary. However, when judging Rakhat (from our human perspective) we could consider violence that has led to a more inclusive society within the U.S. today. For example, look at the Civil War or Colonialism- we could still have slaves and people ruled by Europeans who are thousands of miles away. Not that violence is necessary to change, but sometimes good changes come out of violence. Maybe it is possible for a better (in the human moral sense) Jana'ata/Runa relationship to develop after the violence of the genocide/revolution is worked out.

2006-11-15T00:39:00.000-05:00

The aspect of the Children of God that I found the most intersting was the political ramifications of the first Jesuit party's interference in Rakhati affairs. I do recognize that the issue of faith and religion are probably the more important themes in the novel, but I was personnally more interested in the Runa revolt and the ensuing genocide of the Jana'ata. Therefore it is this topic that I am going to talk about. First of all it is necessary to use the term genocide to describe what the Runa revolt turned into. After all it did seem that the object after a certain point in the revolt was to completely exterminate the Jana'ata. Interestingly enough what did happen was actually a form of "ethnic cleansing." What the Runa did was drive the Jana'ata off a significant portion of the planet. However, it is important to note that they stopped only because they were unable to find the remaining Jana'ata due to the limits of the sattelites around the planet.

I also find it interesting that in the end when both sides finally agreed to a compromise solution it was a form of partition. I think this is interesting because it is comparable to what finally ended the conflict in the Balkans, the same conflict that introduced the term "ethnic cleansing" to the world. After all the Dayton Accords divided Bosnia into the Serb Republic and the Muslim-Croat Federation and even now the effects are still felt. Bosnia is not really a unified country. This really shows the limits of the partition solution and raises questions as to how well the reservation system will work on Rakhat. Emilio was correct in saying that the reservations were disasterous for the Native Americans and I believe partition was a less than ideal solution for the Balkans. Yet at the same time I do not think that there was much else that could be done on Rakhat. Something needed to be done and done quickly. Also I dont think that the partition aspect is that detrimental to either the Jana'ata or the Runa. Both can survive without the other and given the current poisonous attitude between the two species partition is probably for the best. Also I am not sure that the Jana'ata reservations would be like the reservations for the Native Americans. Therefore it seems that the solution agreed to was a pretty good one for the Jana'ata and the Runa.

Another interesting thing I noted in the novel is how the relationship between the Jana'ata and the Runa reminded me of the situation in Russia prior to the emancipation of the serfs. (If this sounds like a random comparision to make it should be noted that I am greatly interested in all things Russian especially Russian history) I thought that the Runa were similar to the serfs except that the Russian nobles didnt eat their serfs. For example, the Russian nobles were greatly outnumbered by serfs and also lived in fear of a serf revolt. Also the divide between the nobles and the serfs was so great that they were practically from different countries (here expanded to two different species). I also saw similarites in the fact that the leader of the Jana'ata (or one of the Jana'ata states) was instituting a lot of reforms that caused much social unrest similar to the reforms of Tsar Alexander II in the 1860s and 70s. At this same time there was also some agitation on behalf of some elites and intelligentsia to advocate for more rights for the serfs, here represented by Hana'ala and Supaari. Also there was a lot of terrorist violence in this period in Russia as well, here represented by the Runa revolt. There are obvious problems the most glaring be the way the serfs and the Runa gained their freedom. The Runa got theirs by themselves and the serfs were emancipated by the Tsar. Really the comparision is probably better with a straight peasant rebellion in the Middle Ages, but I still like the conections with Russia. Although there were several very serious peasant revolts in Russian history too.

2006-11-14T22:37:00.000-05:00

Sometimes they Die

Okay, I loved "Children of God" nearly as much as I did "The Sparrow." It is well written, credible and clever. Supaari and Hlavin Kitheri are particularly poeticly tragic figures; men who should have been close allies turned against each other by circumstance. I particularly like the way Hlavin died, with all the sincerity of his life and reign. However, the "and they all lived happily ever after" ending and the restoration of Emilio's faith disappointed me thoroughly.

All throughout "The Sparrow" and until the end of "Children of God," Russel did an incredible job of colorfully and credibly describing the "God" problem. Throughout narrative of Emilio Sandez's experience, the lingering problem is that there seems to be no pattern or reason for the suffering he and other innocents bear, and the deepest theme is discontent with a God that can permit such suffering to exist. No character can find a sufficient answer; the Jesuits closest to Emilio's recovery in Naples cannot find a sufficient answer, Emilio himself is kidnapped and forced to return to Rakhat, the "justice" of the Runa turns into pogrom and genocide, and the worst punishment Danny Iron Horse can envision is living with what he has done to Emilio. Then it all works out; the Runa and the Jana'ata come to some sort of accord, Emilio symbolically atones for the death of Askama by the birth of Hana'alla's child, and Isaac finds beautiful music in the combined genetic structure of the three sentient species. Deus ex DNA. The main question of "The Sparrow" is neatly sidestepped, and Anne Edwards turns in her grave. "'Even when you've got all the medical technology in the world and even when you try your goddamnedest to bring them back and even if they're wonderful musicians and even if they were healthy yesterday and even when they're too damned young to die. Sometimes they just die, okay?'" ("The Sparrow" 198). In "Children of God," the patient doesn't die, and the God Question remains unasked, much less unanswered.

Eventually, what heals Emilio and stops his nightmares is not any deeper understanding of reality, or any new acceptance of the past, or any sterner conception of ethics, but the turning of events to better suit him. Emilio was awakened to the terrible proposition of a malevolent or nonexistent God in "The Sparrow," but by the end of "Children of God" he has been lulled back to sleep by the appearance that things have played out well. God or Russel bribes Emilio Sandez back to faith with goodies, not understanding.

2006-11-14T00:20:00.000-05:00

The road of good intention

What really struck me as interesting in this book is not that the Runa revolted or that the mass slaughter of the Jana'ata was conducted. Those seeds were sown at the end of The Sparrow. The source of the genocide, Suupara, was a sense of self loathing that makes for an interesting case study. What is so interesting is not so much the original source of the genocide, but the driving force and creative energies of it, Sophia. At the end of the book, she finally repents from the genocidal course but its rage sustains her for many years more than she may have survived without it. The driving force of this extermination was a Jew. I do not wish to say that Sophia should be stereotyped in the role of a comisuration of suffering and horror of exterimation because she is a Jew. Sophia is a person, subject to rages and blid hatred as much as anyone else. But she also became very attached to her religeon when teaching Ha'lanna and Isaac and one would imagine that the idea of persecution would wither and a certain empathy for the innocent and recognition for the innocent would flourish in her.

However, perhaps being a Mendes as she was so proud of in fact drove her to be an even more violent and destructive slayer. All her life she lived with the ideal of being a Mendes, outsmarting the people of the world because the world is all set to use you because of who and what you are, a point that is only further driven home by her life in bondage. Perhaps she was finally able to see a people she identified with, in their struggle against oppression, and channelled a millenium of frustration and impotent raging into the Runa revolt. Perhaps her history as not just a Jew, but specifically a Sephardic Jew made her more brutal an inquistor than the conquestador in Emilio could ever have been.

2006-11-13T19:59:00.000-05:00

It is hard for me to tell what Russell is actually trying to say about faith after reading Children of God. After The Sparrow I was sure that she was trying to make her readers challenge their own faith and that she wanted us to believe that Emilio's faith was tested and that he failed this test because he gave up on God after he was raped. I suspected that his faith would be restored in Children of God and that he would finally understand why he was sent to Rakhat and why he was tortured. It is not exactly clear as to whether Emilio restored his faith in God after his second trip to Rakhat. He was able to understand Saphari's motives more clearly, see what had happened on Rakhat due to the rise of Runa power, and finally make peace with his life. On the trip home to Earth, his nightmares finally stopped and he was able to meet his daughter and grandson. Russell could be saying that because God's plan can only be seen and understood in retrospect that religion is ultimately manipulative. Or maybe all we need is faith and we do not need to understand what God's plan is? Juliani and Danny Rocking Horse kidnap Emilio and send him back to Rakhat for Emilio's salvation and because they believe that it is part of God's plan for Emilio to return. But are they really carrying out God's plan or are they simply able to justify their actions in retrospect?

Russell seemed to argue that knowledge leads to understanding which is in opposition to the argument that Todorov made (where Cortez had more knowledge but this allowed him to destroy more, rather than less of Aztec civilization). Sophia said (p. 259) in reference to a lack of knowledge: "That was the root of so much fear and hatred, she realized." In fact Sophia does not realize that Ha'anala and Isaac live on a commune in the North where Jana'ata and Runa live in harmony and no Runa are eaten. Only after she Emilio tells her the truth does she halt her attack and suggest that negotiations should be held with the Runa courts. Although in a way Russell also made reference to Todorov's argument- that knowledge does not halt destruction it instead allows one to reach power. Page 252: "But knowledge is power, and with Sofia Mendes's help, the Runa had become very knowledgeable indeed." Because the Runa knew that resistance was possible, they were able to come to power but they almost killed the entire race of Jana'ata and were resistant to building the kind of utopia that Ha'anala and Isaac created. I think that in a way Russell was trying to get at the inevitability of conflict and show her readers that beings will always desire power and feel hatred toward those who have power over them.

2006-11-13T11:21:00.000-05:00

Visionaries

What amazed me coming from the class discussion was the idea that people kept discounting Columbus as an intelligent man, as if we thought he was previously and that we needed to disabuse that notion. Do we instantly protray all those who discover something as wonderful, enlightened people whom obviously have the morals we ascribe to today as well as a keen intellect? I think we do. The truth is obviously not born out in Columbus. The man thought he would hit land within the first week of his journey because the seaweed told him of the proximity of land. He landed over a month later. The natives obviously didn't speak a language, but they told him of the people of the Great Khan. Cuba was not an island, but rather a part of the mainland, nevermind that a quick sail around it would have proven otherwise. He wanted to restart the freakin crusades for crying out loud. I will not deny that Columbus has a great deal of courage, but he certainly was not the brightest crayon in the box.

What is interesting is that his voyage was a success, if not one in his view. Because Columbus found something, he was elevated to this status of the dash and daring adventurer rather than a foolhardy sailor who stumpled around getting lucky. Becasue he won, he can be labed as tenacious, daring, a visionary rather than a failure, obstinate, foolhardy, and stupid. Those who keep fighting what they think is right only get redeemed if everyone else thinks what they find or conclude is right as well. We love people like that. But those who end up being "wrong" we revile, "hoisting them on their own petard" if you will. All it takes is chance.