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.

2006-11-12T23:37:00.000-05:00

In class we discussed whether or not Cortes was instrumental in the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. I personally believe that he was not indispensible. Unquestionably he was very helpful and definitely helped the Spanish succeed in their conquest, but I think that if Cortes had not been there someone else would have taken his place. I think it instead it was the general mindset of the conquistodors that was the key not Cortes personally. After all other Spanish missions also managed to conquor other Native American civilizations under similar conditions. The most notable example of this is Pizzaro's conquest of the Incas. He too led a very small force of Spaniards (I believe it was even smaller than Cortes's in fact) against a mighty empire which vastly outnumbered him and he too was successful in bringing them down. It could be argued that Pizzaro (as a disclaimer it should be noted that my knowledge of the specifics of the conquistodors missions is slightly hazy but I am reasonably sure that what follows is correct) stumbled on to the Incas in the midst of a civil war and this greatly aided his conquest. However, I fail to see how this is any different from Cortes exploiting the divisions that existed within the Aztec empire. In my opinion they are essentially the same things. I believe that this goes a long way toward showing that Cortes was nothing unique. After all he was not there when the Spaniards attacked the Incas and the result was the same.

It may also be argued that without Cortes the Spaniards would not have gone after the Aztecs. After all Cortes was not ordered to conquor the Aztecs, in fact he was disobeying orders by going after them. I, however, feel that this is an inadequate explanation. Even if Cortes had not decided to conquor the Aztecs someone else would have decided to explore the area were they were and would also try and conquor them. Either that or the Spanish government would have specifically sent someone to conquor the Aztecs once they knew of their exisitence. I firmly believe that the end result would have been the same with or with out Cortes. I would be willing to concede the point that Cortes greatly aided the conquest as I definitley believe this. I would even say that perhaps without Cortes the Spanish would have been intitially defeated, but they would have returned and in greater numbers. Eventually they would have succeed. I dont think that anything could have persuaded the Spaniards to give up short of total victory.

My conclusion raise of course an interesting moral question. As Professor Jackson pointed out if it was all inevitable then no one is to blame. Thus, if my conclusion holds true then Cortes is blameless for all of the atrocities that resulted from the Spanish conquest, and that is a lot to absolve him from. Personally I am loathe to proclaim Cortes blameless. Personnaly I believe that he must bear the responsibility for what his conquest caused. Yet at the same time I firmly believe that the conquest would have occured with or with out him. I think that the two facts can be reconciled. The conquest would have happened either way but he was the specific one who brought it about and therefore he must bear the resonsibility for what came of his actions.

2006-11-11T23:26:00.000-05:00

Even when Todorov pointed out that the first European to land in America I didn't think to draw direct comparisons between Christopher Columbus and Emilio Sandez before PTJ mentioned that in "Children of God" we were about to be introduced to the Cortes figure, Carlo. Now, as of this writing, I am far enough into the sequel to understand that Carlo is a distinctly ruthless figure and very conscious of the historical implications of these first years of contact with Rakhat, and that the comparison of him to Hernando Cortes is very apt.

If the Spanish colonization of the Americas is a good model, then curious exploration is accompanied by inaccurate assessment and followed by economic/political excursions, which in turn bring about chaos and destruction of those native cultures that were originally the subjects of wonder and confusion. And, as we observed in class, the end result of this is usually to assimilate the vanquished civilization through enslavement justified by dehumanization. I think, however, the fact that we have the preconception of non-human aliens in our culture makes it at least even money that if a situation where humanity is obviously technologically superior at first contact, we will behave with civility and forebearance. "The Sparrow" is a representation of what our culture hopes and believes is possible in first contact (which, despite the loss of life and tragedy, is not one of mutual hostility but misunderstanding), and stands in stark contrast to the deliberate violence that marked the European discovery of the Americas.

2006-11-10T10:25:00.000-05:00

In class we discussed how when Columbus and then Cortez met the Aztecs and other native peoples they had no way to classify them or place them in an existing "template". They were not European and they had different language and customs. The Europeans, maybe because they believed that they were on a mission for/from God or because they wanted to exploit the natives and their natural resources, assumed that the natives were inferior. The Aztecs and natives, in comparison, assumed that Cortez was a God (partially because they had no way to classify him and partially because he manipulated his image so that he would represent a God from one of their legends).

Classification effects how we view and act toward others. In social psychology there are theorists who believe that we have schemas which are basically categories that we place events and people in so that we can organize our thoughts and what we are perceiving. If we encounter something or someone that does not obviously fit into one of our schemas we either place what is new into the best pre-existing schema or we create a new schema. People feel cognitive dissonance when several events occur to make their schemas or categories inaccurate. With current race relations in the U.S., for example, there is an effort (on the part of some people) to fit people of color into the white male template/power structure. Equality will never be achieved, however, until the effort to "make people white" is abandoned and a new template or schema is created to establish all people who live in the U.S. as Americans and eligible for every opportunity and position of power.

We discussed briefly in class that if aliens were to land in D.C. today, we would have a template to use (created by sci fiction books and movies) in order to categorize who the aliens are. However, what would happen if they had human characteristics? Just as white Americans have done in the past with people of other cultures and races, the human-like aliens would be fit into a template in which they would be judged to be either superior or inferior to Americans. When Columbus and Cortez landed in the Americas they at first had no template (or schema) in which they could classify the native peoples, however, once they realized that the natives were human they fit the natives into their European template--making the natives inferior to Europeans. As long as the natives were inferior, even if they were human, the Europeans were able to kill them and destroy their civilization.

In The Sparrow the Runa and Jana'ata were considered to be human-like and thus wrongfully placed in the "human" category. By being placed in the human schema that each individual held, the Runa and Jana'ata were assumed to function like humans. The group never realized the true Runa and Jana'ata relationship until later because they had placed them into the "human schema". Wrongful classification of people in both the case of Cortez and the natives and the humans and the inhabitants of Rakhat led to destruction. Todorov, at the end of his work, advocated that every person should be placed in a separate category in order to prevent destruction of the other. I think that the answer, instead, is to be aware of the schemas and categories that we have and how we classify others.

2006-11-08T17:05:00.000-05:00

Self Delusions

In Todorov's portrayal's of Columbus, what struck me as interresting is how often Columbus would delude himself in his quest for the glory of God. He would report understanding the Indians clearly as long as it was what he wanted to hear, and then immediately contradict himself two or three lines later in his log by saying that he understood not a word the Indians where saying. For example, Columbus would not believe what the Indians told him of the creation and location of the pearls they traded him, but he would completely agree with their references to lands that contain more gold than soil. He would not believe what the Indians told him of the island nature of Cuba, and at times denied that the Indians had language. This is in contrast to his insistent belief that they knew of the Great Khan and would take Columbus to him. Parallels to this bahavior are certain to abound in The Sparrow. Several times, Emilio said that they hadn't known couldn't know, what the Runa or the Jana'ata meant. Was it that they couldn't have known or that they choose not to understand. If certain facts didn't fit into what their world view was,could they have explained it away somehow or simply ignored it? It is hard to tell as the book is narrated in such as way as to hold us with the conceptions and ideas of the people themselves rather than 3rd person omniscient. How often do people delude themselves into seeing exactly what they want to, what fits into what they want to find or believe. How often?...very.

2006-11-08T14:06:00.000-05:00

I thought that Todorov's work was interesting because it highlighted how exploration, conquest, and colonization were possible because the Spanish at first assumed that they were superior beings to the new peoples that they met and then the Spanish attempted to learn about and understand the culture that they were conquering and this allowed them to be victorious. Columbus followed what Todorov termed the "finalist approach" in that Columbus "knew" what he was going to find before he found it. For example, when he saw what he thought were mermaids (which he had read about) he described them as "ugly men" and he was never able to doubt that the beings that he was encountering were anything but ugly mermaids. It was Columbus' finalist approach, however, that allowed him to undertake the voyage to India by the western route. Columbus "knew" that India was not that far away and so his faith in the voyage allowed him to reach land (even though it was not India). Although Columbus was only able to view what he found with his own "lens" which made it so he categorized the other as noble savages, his belief that the would succeed allowed him to make first contact rather successfully. He dehumanized the "savages" that he met which led him to believe that conquering these "savages" would be easy.

Although Todorov actually outlined reasons why Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs (Montezuma hesitated, the native people had already been conquered by the Aztecs, Cortez had superior weapons, and there were already warring villages), it seems as though Cortez was able to carry out his plan of conquest because he believed that the Christian God wanted it and he wanted to achieve his goal. Although Cortez found an interpreter and began to learn about the people and civilizations that he was encountering, the enemy or "other" did not become more human (meaning that it might be unjust to conquer them) to him but instead he was able to use his knowlege to achieve his goal more accurately. Cortez' means of achieving his goal were very effective- while the Aztecs were trying to figure out what was going on and why the gods would allow this to happen, Cortez was learning about the best ways to exploit them. I like this quote:
"...the Aztecs, faced with the Spaniards renounce their entire system of human otherness and find themselves obligated to resort to the only other device available: the exchange with the gods." (76) The Aztecs were unable to place the Spanish into any of their existing categories of "others" at first, so they resorted to trying to figure out why they were there and who they were (they asked their gods for help).

The way the Aztecs approached the "other" seems superior to the way the Spanish approached the "other". The Aztecs and other native peoples took time to try to understand the situation and what the best way to approach the other would be. If both the Spanish and the Aztecs had acted in this manner (and without alterior motives) then the first encounters would not have been about conflict. In terms of The Sparrow I think that Emilio's party may have resembled the Aztecs in the way that they approached the cultural meeting of the other. Emilio's party tried to understand the Runa and Jana'ata; yet, they were unable to see their violent intent because they did not have any alterior motives as to violence themselves.

2006-11-08T01:12:00.000-05:00

Todorov's description of the ugly things early European colonizers did in Mesoamerica is certainly a depressing critique of mankind's ability to meet and interact with the Other. However, I would not take it as a damning judgement on our chance of having more peaceful first contacts in the future. While Todorov's book is certainly conclusive evidence that sixteenth century Europeans were unethical in their conduct and limited in their ability to perceive the Other as different yet equal, I would argue that there is good evidence that humanity has moved beyond the maturity of the conquistadores.

The fact that we are even discussing the possibility of discovering entirely unknown cultures that we still expect to hold respect and regard for is, I think, a positive sign; Todorov does not provide any indication that the Spaniards held such expectations before 1492. Certainly, the very existance of Todorov's book is conclusive proof that on some level we have moved beyond Columbus's sorting human groups into categories of either inferiority or similarity to his own.

The question, I think, is whether the inhumanity shown the Indians by the Spaniards was the result of a cultural immaturity (that we have, hopefully, outgrown), or a function of the situation in which the first contacts occurred. In the former case, I refer back to my argument that culturally we have matured, and can hope for more civilized discourse with Others we encounter in the future. In the latter, however, our level of cultural devopment might not matter, and other, deeper causes are responsible. My worry in this case is that no matter how advanced our parent culture is (analogous to the Spanish), circumstances on the fringe of the known might be such that they predispose towards violence whatever individuals we send out to meet the Other. Trying to clarify what I know I'm writing incoherently; was the dismissal of Columbus and brutality of Cortes due to their upbringing and the culture they were sons of, or would the circumstances they faced (prospects of great wealth, confrontation with an Other that could not be easily communicated with, great distances from home, etc.) the greater factor in their actions?

To answer this question, I would be interested in examining academic writings of the period leading up to 1492, but I would also be interested in examining the stories told in the day. Culturally speaking, I think that the generally optimistic (or, at the very least, hopeful) tone of a great deal of modern science fiction indicates that modern humanity is better equipped emotionally to deal with an entirely new Other. The lack of such optimistic literature in pre-colonial Spanish writings would indicate that we do, in fact, have something that the conquistadores did not, while its presence would indicate that in outlook, at least, our cultures are not so different.

2006-11-08T01:03:00.000-05:00

The Link between Knowledge of and the Destruction of the Other

One of the most interesting points I felt that Todorov brought up was the connection between knowledge of the other and the ability to destroy the other. He points out that knowledge of the Other would be expected to breed empathy and understanding, but that this was not the case with Cortes and the Aztecs. In fact Todorov claims that Cortes was only able to conquer the Aztecs because he knew more about them. He understood them better than they understood him, and thus was able to prevail in the conflict that ensued. Cortes succeeded in destroying the Aztecs by virtue of the fact that he understood them. The reason I find this so striking and interesting is because it is the complete opposite of what happens in The Sparrow. In the novel the Jesuits manage to completely upend Jana'ata society precisely because they did not understand them. It was their ignorance of their social order and carefully controlled method of breeding the Runa that caused the crisis.

It is also interesting to see that the once Emilio did understand the way things worked on Rakhat, he began to emphathize with the Jana'ata as Todorov seems to be saying you would expect. He understands why they act the way they do and tries to explain and rationalize their actions to the Father General and the others. He no longer finds their practices, such as controlling the breeding of the Runa and the fact that the Jana'ata eat the Runa children, morally repugnant. He instead simply sees these actions as the way things are on Rakhat. This is stark contrast to the Father General and the others, who are horrified to learn such things about the Jana'ata. The key difference here is that the Father General does not understand Rakhat and the Jana'ata and Emilio does (or at least better than the Father General). I think that both of these examples show that we should be careful in making any definitive predictions about what effect having knowledge of the Other will have on our relations with him.

2006-11-06T01:11:00.000-05:00

I think an interesting question to come out of The Sparrow and that was touched on in class was the culpability of the Jesuit party in the massacre of the Runa and the upending of Jana'ata society. I think that the answer depends on where we want to set the start point for this whole sorry episode. If we set the start point as the planting of the gardens which is where Emilio believes the fatal flaw lies, then I would argue that the Jesuit party is not at fault for what happened. They took precautions before planting the gardens. They were very careful to try and minimize ecological damage, as evidenced by their careful selection of plants. Also one cannot fault them for the planting on the basis of ecological reasons. The fact is that they had already affected the planet by their very prescense there. This is the very conclusion that the party reached when they were debating whether or not to bury Alan Pace. Furthermore there is no way that they could have known the detrimental effects that the planting of the gardens would have had. How were they to know that the entire Runa population was carefully regulated and that they were only allowed to breed at certain times and that this form of population control depended on a strictly regulated fat levels which the advent of homegrown food would upset. It may be said that they should have foreseen that the Runa would pick up farming, but still the previous reason applies. They still could not have known the results of this, and therefore are not at fault.

However if we choose to examine the massacre and ensuing social unrest from its immediate cause, that is the Jesuit intervention during the massacre of the Runa children, then the answer changes. If this is the start point then I would have to say that the Jesuit party is at fault. This is not a case of them not being able to determine the logical outcome. They should have been able to foresee that to go against a military patrol would end in violence. Admittedly I do not think that Sofia or the others thought much about the consequences of their actions before they acted. Still in this instance I would say that the Jesuits are at fault here, even if I am also of the opinion that they probably could not have acted otherwise. I dont think that they were the type of people who could just sit there as innocent children were slaughtered.

The other question that goes hand in hand with this question of culpability is the question of whether or not what the Jesuits did was the right thing to do. They acted according to their conscious and I think that is what is important. Also as SymbolSix pointed out in his post the Runa did not have to follow the example the humans set, but they chose to of their own free will. I realize that my reaction to the intervention of the Jesuits is colored by my own set of morals and beliefs. I do not think that they were necessarily wrong to intervene in the massacre of the children. I am actually very hesitant to cast judgement one way or the other, although I definitely lean toward the idea that the Jesuits acted correctly. I think that this is a topic that will get fleshed out more in the next book.

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

In class, we briefly considered the question of whether the Stella Maris expedition (and Sophia in particular) were wrong to encourage the Runa to resist the Jana'ata patrol that came to take the children (and, it seems, to inspire a wider revolt). I think the answer to this question rests, ultimately, in our evaluation of the Runa as either people or non-people, animals.

To make this argument carry any weight, I have to first assume that "people" are endowed with certain rights, including safety from the unsoclicited violence of others. That is, if you see a man beating a person to death, what you are seeing is wrong, as opposed to if he was beating a rather ornamental fern to pulp. ("Unsolicited" only because of the unusual cases of assisted suicide and masochism.) Now, it is not in any logical sense necessary to grant these rights to "people," but we do it anyway (there's a lot of philosophy as to why we recognise the rights of individuals, and most of it boils down to "because we want the same treatment"). In addition, I have to secondly assume that individuals have the right to intervene in a situation where they witness these rights being violated. That is, if you witness the aforemention assault, you can intervene to save the person from the man. I would assert that both these assumptions are true and reasonable, common to nearly all systems of ethics (Kant would have a problem with the second, but show me a good Kantian, and I'll show you a true sociopath).

Anyway, with this definition of "people," the question of tampering with Rakhat society becomes one of whether the Runa (clearly unwilling subjects of the violence of the Jana'ata) are deserving of that designations and the entailed rights. The argument on whether a speicies such as the Runa do, in fact, constitute people is a long and involved one, but for myself, I'm willing to accept that they should be considered people until proven otherwise, lest we risk acting inhumanely to creatures who turn out to be our ethical equals.

Now, the one objection I can foresee (if my assumptions are not questioned, which leads into a whole other level of philosophical debate), is that the village Runa did, in fact, consent to being subects of the Jana'ata violence, and continually reaffirm that consent through participation in the whole great system of trade and eugenics the Jana'ata organize. My response to this would be that Sophia and the Stella Maris crew do not significantly act on the behalf of the Runa (the one instance notwithstanding), and only plant the idea of resistance in their minds. The Runa, if they did not want to be influenced by the humans, simply could have ignored them, and they very clearly chose not to.

2006-11-04T19:46:00.000-05:00

On Morality

Emilio seems to have two reasons for going to Rakhat. One of them is to find God for himself and since he feels that God has planned for him to go, the trip will be the ultimate way for him to get closer to knowing and understanding God. The other reason is to find out if the sentient species on Rakhat share the same morals and worship the same God as Emilio does. I think that it was a wonderful idea to have Jesuits undertake the mission (other than the idea the Russell simply wanted to explore Christian faith) to Rakhat because they are the most intellectual and exploration part of the Christian church and they also are very accepting of people because they are priests. Emilio is hard on himself because he and the others never understood the true structure of Rakhat social order until it was too late. One of their greatest advantages, in that they were very accepting of a new and alien culture instead of wanting to intentionally destroy or judge it (which is what normally happens in encounters with others) turned out to be one of their greatest flaws, in that they maybe did not question the social order enough and figure out the true Jana'ata and Runa relationship.

I think the discussion of whether or not the Runa and Jana'ata relationship is morally right or not (in that the Jana'ata eat children and that there is a general disrespect for sentient life) is interesting. Emilio tried to not judge the Runa and Jana'ata for all of the tragic events that occur and instead he judged God for allowing these things to occur. I think that Russell is making an interesting point by having Emilio not directly judge the society because in all first encounters (whether it be aliens or different cultures) there is a general tendency to compare and immediately judge each others morals and customs before trying to understand them. During the "inquisition" the priests judged Emilio's actions by moral standards on Earth. At first, they were unable to consider that Emilio had to act in certain ways because he was in a far different society than the societies of earth. For example, Emilio was judged because he ate the meat that was really Runa children, but he was simply trying to survive and by Jana'ata standards this act was not morally wrong. Religion wants us to assume that morals are God-given rather than created by society. I wonder if Russell was trying to say that those on Rakhat had a different God than the Christian God (which would give them different morals) or was Russell trying to make the point that morals are only tested, created, and encouraged by the church but are not God-given but created by society. I think that Russell was making the commentary that morals are really created by society and religious institutions simply want to claim that God defines morality.

It also seems as though the idea of morality can be extended to the question of how a just God could allow tragic things to happen to Emilio. Maybe God has an entirely different set of morals or acts from a different moral framework than sentient beings do. Maybe this is why humans are unable to understand God's divine plan- because it makes no sense to us morally. Maybe the Christian God is utilitarian in that he tries to make the greatest amount of people be the happiest. Some people would have to suffer so that most were happy.

2006-11-04T10:01:00.000-05:00

Irony.

As was mentioned in the class, i found Emilio's failure of faith in God by the end of the book tragic, but in the end rather ironic. I beleive it was Jen that mentioned that a crisis of faith is certainly not something unknown to religeous establishments as well as the problems of reconciling an all knowing and all loving god with the amount of pain and suffering in the world. As a Jesuit priest that had been stationed in various missions, in places where he watched children starve to death, I would have imagined that Emilio would have rationalized the why the sparrow falls. Granted, Emilio said he never truely believed in God until landing on the planet, nor would he like to believe that God arranged all of it in order to have Emilio raped.

However, this idea that all of it was focused on him grants Emilio a deadly hubris. "Who can know God's plan" is certainly somehting that we have heard before, and is something that is usually used to consol those who have suffered a huge setback or lose when no good reason presents itself. Does God's plan also include the happiness for everyone? No, or else no one would suffer or die. Does God's plan allow special priveleges to those who have "an inside line" so to speak to God? Doubtful, as even within the book the example of the Jesuit priest killed by the Mohawk indians is shown. Emilio is suffering under the delusion that he is specially protected by God.

If this mission was indeed a mission from God, is the book focused on the wrong person? If the "plan" was to upset the social order on Ratat, then was the mission's focus not on Emilio, but on Sophia? Her story is as improbable as Emilio's and in the end, when Emilio held back, Sophia took that step forward, became the martyr, and planted the seeds of revolution on Ratat.
The irony of the whole situation is that music brought the humans to Ratat, music they thought glorious and music they could not understand. And it is music again, the glorious poetry and compositions of the Reshtar, flowing through the universe, heralding not a call to God, but rather the rape of one of God's emissaries.

2006-11-01T15:08:00.000-05:00

Weaponless Exploration.

One of the things that struck me as improbable or stupid in this book was the lack of weapons with the landing party. The only person to have brought a weapon was an old ex-marine who brought along an old winchester rifle as a keepsake rather than as a defense mechanism. I can't believe that a group heading into a new situation, exploring a new world, would fail to bring weapons with them as a defensive option. It doesn't matter if the priests were content with being martyred if God chose them to be so, but as a way to fend off aggressive animals if the need arose. Their goal was to contact and communicate with the sentient species, to know God and to discover His other children. This is not a goal that can be realized if they are all picked off by an alien version of a tiger or hippo who is mad that these trespassers have invaded the animal's territory. Firepower could have interviened in the child killing scenario shown later in the book. The Jana'ata seem to only posess natural weapons because they had no need to develop others. In the past, their claws and teeth were enough to do the job. as was said, the patrol was few, and was a number that could have been reduced even further with the judicious application of firepower. It may have soured the relationship, but attacking unarmed would have done that anyway. I find a major failing in the book to be not showing what the introduction of fire arms would have had on the cultures of the new planet.

2006-11-01T12:50:00.000-05:00

Wow, I am impressed thoroughly by "The Sparrow" and look forward to reading "Children of God" in two weeks.

Now, there's more to dissect in this book than we'll have time for, but I'd like myself to examine Supaari VaGayjur and through him, the rest of the Jana'ata. Though this Jana'ata seems the most empathetic of any the Stella Maris team encounters, he is nevertheless exemplary of how Rakhat's inhabitants are alien (if that wording seems awkward, it's intended, I didn't want to write ". . .of how alien Rakhat's inhabitants are.") I can't make up my mind whether that Jana'ata are very similar to humans (their carnivorous habits notwithstanding), or if they are incredibly different.

Now, at his introduction, it isn't hard to imagine Supaari as a type of human entrepreneur. The first things we see him doing are making the motions of a standard day in his life, and making certain cultural adjustments, it isn't to difficult to imagine him in a business suit and tie, making executive decisions at the office. Indeed, he seems later to adhere more scrupulously to a recogniseably human code of ethics than many humans, refusing to bilk confused strangers out of their valuable merchandise (p 339). On the other hand, we don't get a view inside Supaari's head when he "rescues" Emilio and Marc from the Jana'ata patrol, or when he later trades Emilio to the Rashtar for reproduction rights. We have to wonder, then, what sort of code it is that does not permit a Jana'ata to cheat a stranger, but allows him to sell a (I use the word tentatively) friend into slavery? I wonder if Supaari's feelings towards the humans are closer to those he'd feel to another of his own species, or those he'd feel towards a Runa.

2006-11-01T10:59:00.000-05:00

Wow. I really enjoyed this novel. So there is obviously a huge debate going on here about faith and how we gain it, keep it, and test it. Emilio fell into the Jesuit tradition because of the cruel punishments that he received from his non-biological father growing up. He became a linguist due to his skills and always considered and questioned God's plan when he was being posted so many places and forced to learn different languages. However, he always had faith that God 1) had a plan and 2) would reveal it to Emilio with time. The night that Jimmy discovered that they were picking up radio signals from sentient beings on another planet Emilio thought that he understood God's plan; however, after all of the hardships that he and his companions faced on Rakhat he instead of doubting his faith believed in God with more strength. However, after he was forcibly raped and he accidentally killed Askama he lost his faith in God. Emilio was forced to experience horrors that he believed only someone without faith in God or someone who was being punished by God would experience. Emilio lost faith in God and hope in general because he felt betrayed. Although the events that led Emilio to lose faith were extreme, maybe these events were simply a test and part of God's larger plan. Maybe in the same way that Emilio's faith differed and changed during the novel, God's protection over Emilio changed. This doesn't mean however that Emilio ever stopped either having or questioning his faith and that God ever stopped loving Emilio.

I don't know if everyone has the same edition of The Sparrow as I do but in the back of my copy there is an interview with Russell and the interviewer basically asks her what the religious thought experiment was all about. She says that she used to be Catholic, then rejected religion, and has now found Judaism. In writing the novel she was trying to explore the benefits and risks of believing in a religion and of having "blind" faith. For her the appeal of religion is the idea that the ethics and values that religion teaches have been tested for centuries, thus, they are good ethics to be passed on to children. This is probably why the Jesuits in the novel are very tolerant and more focused on morals than Christ specifically. She makes her point stronger by making Emilio challenge his vow to celibacy, for example, which brings to light the idea of examining the morals that religion want us to follow. The priests in the novel are not perfect, they are human, and they are not always trying to convert people or discuss Christ. I think that their imperfection makes their struggle with faith more real and allows readers to relate to their thoughts.

2006-11-01T03:15:00.000-05:00

One of the things that I find interesting in The Sparrow is Emilio's dissillusionment with God. It seems to me that it all boils down to the age old question of why would a just and loving God allow suffering in this world. After all that seems to me to be Emilio's complaint as points out on page 394. "If I accept that the beauty and the rapture were real and true, then the rest of it was God's will too, and that, gentlemen, is cause for bitterness." He seems to come to the conslusion that the answer to the question of why would a just and loving God allow suffering in the world is really quite simple. God is not just and loving but rather vicious and vindictive. Personnally I think that this is a terrifying philosophy to have. To believe that the world we live in is merely the playground for an sadistic deity is not a pleasant thought. Yet this is what Emilio seems to believe at the end of the novel. Yet I feel that if you were to operate under the assumption that God is mean spirited this simply leads to the reverse of the suffering question posed earlier. This time it would be why would a meanspirited and vindictive God allow happines and joy in this world. I imagine Emilio might try and counter that God would do such a thing only to make the pain all the more intense when the other shoe drops, but I think this is a dodge. The fact remains that there are still people in the world who live very happy, satisfied lives. Personnally I think that God is just, merciful, and loving (the alternative is really too frightening to contemplate) although I am at a loss as to why suffering exists in the world. However, I do believe that it exists for a reason and I hope that Emilio will come to these same conclusions in Children of God.

As a somewhat meaningless side note, I really wish we had gotten a chance to find out what happened to the UN exploration team that was sent out to Rakhat after the Jesuits. I mean they implied pretty strongly that they died (communication was lost after they said they were being escorted back to their ship. That doesnt look good for them) but it would have been nice to know the details of what happened. Maybe we will ge to find out in Children of God. I hope so.

2006-10-30T13:11:00.000-05:00

In discussing Schmitt's idea of the political and his critique of liberalism, I think it's important to remember exactly what he means when he talks about “the political.” Where Lauren found a problem with Schmitt's dismissal of social issues as nonpolitical, I think there is only a misunderstanding of his meaning. According to Schmitt, politics became confused with social issues “at exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other” (p22). For Schmitt, the baseline of thought is that politics (i.e. the organization of people into groups for physical security) is totally unconcerned with society, and my guess is that his response to Lauren's argument is that in our own modern nation state and society have become so muddled that her argument presupposes the same false situation that he predicts.

In response to Schmitt's critique of liberalism, I will highlight two short passages:

“For the individual as such there is no enemy with whom he must enter into a life-and-death struggle if he personally does not want to do so. To compel him to fight against his will is, from the viewpoint of the private individual, lack of freedom and repression. All liberal pathos turn against repression and lack of freedom.” (p71)

Also:

“An imperialism based on pure economic power will naturally attempt to sustain a worldwide condition which enables it to apply and manage, unmolested, its economic means, e.g., terminating credit, embargoing raw materials, destroying the currencies of others, and so on. Every attempt of a people to withdraw itself from the effects of such “peaceful” methods is considered by this imperialism as extra-economic power. . . Finally, it has sufficient technical means to bring about violent death. Modern means of annihilation have been produced by enormous investments of capital and intelligence, surely to be used if necessary.” (p79)

I agree with Schmitt that liberalism does not, in fact, negate the political as he understands it. Liberal nations still engage in diplomacy and statecraft, and war is still a major issue in international relations today. Isn't branding North Korea a rogue nation, censured by the rest of the world, very reminiscent of an alliance waging war in the name of humanity by stripping the enemy of his humanity as Schmitt discusses on pages 54-57? Now, I would disagree that it is impossible for a liberal society to conduct war without sacrificing its liberality. In any case, the Western Allies in the Second World War were more liberal than their enemies (and even their allies in the East), concentration camps for Japanese Americans and all. In a more theoretical and modern sense, however, advanced liberal society simply does not need to resort to a draft (i.e. that compulsion of an individual to fight). A political body can remain a liberal one through creative use of economic incentives. The state has the authority to raise taxes and the wage of a soldier such that it can raise as large an army as its population can support, simply by making the career of a professional (and entirely voluntary) soldier far more lucrative relative to any other. Now, I know this is a highly theoretical situation, and probably not practical, but it is indeed an example of where Schmitt's indictment of liberalism breaks down: at the very most, Schmitt has proven that in lean times liberal states may resort to illiberal methods such as the draft, but certainly not that liberal states cannot exist in the realm of the political.

2006-10-30T00:41:00.000-05:00

War in the Schmittian Sense

I thought it was intersting how in class Professor Jackson mentioned that he did not think that the United States had ever fought a war in the Schmittian sense. I think that it is possible to debate this point. Schmitt maintains that war is only justifiable if it is "motivated be an existential threat to one's own way of life" (p. 49). Having clarified what war is in the Schmittian sense, I can now examine the different wars that the United States has been in and see if they meet this criteria. For simplicity's sake I will confine myself to the wars of the twentieth century. World War I was most definitely not a justifiable war in the Schmittian sense. It did not represent a threat to the American way of life. In fact it had no bearing on the United States at all (minus the German submarine threat which was not a serious threat to the United States' way of life). The US used ideology (and the German U-boat threat and the highly overblown Zimmerman Telegram) to justify its involvement in World War I. It was as Wilson said supposed to be a war "to make the world safe for democracy." This is the antitheis of Schmittian war as he maintains that ideology can never be a valid justification for war.

World War II is a slightly different case. For starters the United States was drawn into the war by a surprise attack on its bases around the Pacific. This could definitely be construed as an existential threat to the United States. After all the territory of the United States was attacked and taken over by a hostile foreign power. It is a perfectlly logical assumption to make that the enemy will continue to attack and attempt to take over more of your territory, thus becoming an existential threat to your country. This would make World War II a justifiable war in the Schmittian sense. The only problem with this is that it is highly unlikely that the Japanese were capable of invading the mainland. Alought I believe that this can be explained away by the fact that the United States' people and government thought that this was a possibility. Also there is the problem of US involvment in the European theater. After all Gemany did not constitute a direct threat to the United States. However, it can be argued that the Germans posed a threat to our trading partners in Europe and if they fell that would disrupt our economic systems and from there could disturb our way of life. Yet Schmitt dismisses war for any kind of economic reasosn. However, I think that the war in Europe could be justified because the Germans were allies of the Japanese and as stated previoulsy the Japanese could be seen as an existential threat tot the United States. Therefore US involvement in WWII can be seen as a justified war in the Schmittian sense.

The Korean and Vietnam Wars would not be justified in the Schmittian sense, as both were all about stopping Communism. Neither case was a direct threat to the United States, and Schmitt does not justify wars based on ideology. Therefore the only war that the United States has fought that could be justified in the Schmittian sense in the twentieth century is the Second World War. I find this somewhat appropriate as World War II is often called the last good war. I also find it somewhat ironic seeing that Schmitt was a Nazi.

2006-10-28T17:59:00.000-04:00

Just as Schmitt gives politicians the power to manipulate arguments that determine who is a friend or foe, we manipulated his philosophy in class and at the beginning of the class I was almost agreeing with Schmitt but by the end of class I agreed that his philosophy was fairly trivial and pointless. Towards the beginning of class when we were putting limitations on how friend/enemy distinctions could be made, it almost seemed as though Schmitt had a point by making his friend/enemy distinctions. If a war could not be justified by an ideological goal, it seemed as though war could be at least preventable in certain situations. I proposed the idea in class that maybe Schmitt was trying to protect the morality of politicians by limiting them to making friend/enemy distinctions before acting (instead of making decisions at random and justifying them by saying the decision was helping to promote/protect an ideological goal). However, the longer we discussed Schmitt's philosophy it became apparent that since politicians decide who is a friend or an enemy they can really create an enemy out of an ideology...for example, terrorists can become the enemy and non-terrorists can become the friends.

Schmitt was also afraid of the creation of one collective political body (such as the U.N.) because then individual people/countries would loose their political agency or ability to make their own decisions. He also did not think a collective like the U.N. would work because there would be no enemy. It is almost as if Schmitt is assuming that a need for friend/enemy distinctions and war is inherent in humans. Politics cannot be removed from humanity and so since friend/enemy distinctions are inherent to humans these distinctions cannot be removed from what is political and from the world in general. It almost seems as if there would actually be more war if all politicians followed Schmitt's philosophy. Because instead of allowing politicians to make decisions to go to war based on an ideology, he forces them to define the enemy. If more people knew that we went to war in Iraq for oil instead of going to war to prevent terrorism then more people may have protested the war. Maybe if the population knew the truth about the friend/enemy distinctions that the government and politicians make then the population would be more readily angered and would maybe try to fight the government (thus causing more fighting rather than less).

I also want to mention that it seems as though Schmitt denies that religion and other "matters of society" are not political because he simply does not want to deal with them. If he pretends that discussions on issues such as child care are considered political then there are huge holes in his theory which claims that all politics have friend/enemy distinctions. I think he is making his philosophical argument less credible by denying that social issues are political.

2006-10-26T19:49:00.000-04:00

Defining the enemy

I disagree with Schmitt's assertion that if wars are stripped of their ideological component and reduced to issues of survival or materials grabs that their will be less war. Ideology may be an easy way to sell action to a "collective", but it is not the only way and the politicians who frame the national consciousness can easily make it so.

As I said in class, why did we seize Guam? Was it to bring civilization to the heathen babies? (I'm not being irreverent in that comment, my mother collected change in her catholic schools as a girl to help save the heathen babies) Well, according to Schmitt, that can't work, because war shouldn't be about ideology. Did we do it to have a good coaling station and to have a nice jumping point for force projection into the Pacific and East Asia? bingo, we have a winner. Its a totally economic/survival reason (if you assume that the nation needs to expand until its limits of controllable force monopoly is reached as Weber would like), and it is certainly something that people would go and die for, or at least send other people to die for.

A quip by British comedian Eddie Izzard sums this up well I think. In talking about giving up colonies after WWII "England! What's that behind your back!" "Oh nothing...just the Faukland Islands. I need them, for...for...strategic sheep purposes!" Those who shape what the collective think about can make a great many things seem to be agreeable depending on how it is presented. For instance, think of the idea of a national ID card in the United States. If you where pro ID card, you could present it to the people as a great way to hinder the movement of those illegally in the country, and since terrorists or others with nefarious purposes are obviously in the country illegal, the card would hurt terrorist operations inside the US. If you were anti the card, you appeal to the people a different way, saying that the card is an attempt by big brother to track the movements of law abiding Americans, an infringment on the freedom and rights that so many have died for. Both are valid ways to look at the issue, and both frame the debate in a certain way.

While i think people will fight harder for an abstract principle than for a physical object, I don't think wars would be eliminated if you remove ideology from the framing of war. People fight hard for objects, especially objects they believe to be theirs (as the contiguous American Nation was obviously ours, never mind a Native American or two hundred thousand). As long as you can frame an issue "well", people will fight for it. In the end, presentation is key and the one with better propaganda wins (and remember, God favors the ones with bigger guns).

2006-10-25T10:51:00.000-04:00

So far, on our blog, no one has discussed Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism and I wanted to discuss it because it seemed important (even though Schmitt did not go into great depth on the topic). I googled Schmitt and liberalism and found that he actually wrote several works that discussed and criticized liberalism. I also found this interesting article on a British anarchist website that discusses Schmitt's works and the possibility (or lack of a possibility) that liberalism and democracy in their true form can exist in the same society. Here's the website: http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/schmitt.php

If I understand Schmitt's description of liberalism in The Concept of the Political he is claiming that people who advocate liberalism oppose the state, especially the power of the state over the citizens, and in opposing the state discuss liberal policy, which is never liberal politics. The only role that the state should have according to liberals is that of protection (the state should protect freedom and protect citizens from threats). According to Schmitt the central focus of liberalism is private law and private property and that there are two different types of liberals that branch out from the central focus. Those liberals that focus on ethics are on one side (or pole) and those who focus on economics are on the other side (or pole) in relation to the central focus. The intellectuals (focus on ethics) see the actions of the government as mass manipulation and propaganda. The economists see the government as having too much control (economically). Schmitt claims that liberals have simply created new definitions or rhetoric for political actions. For example, liberals feel that sanctions and international policing are acceptable where war is not (Schmitt says these terms all mean the same thing). Schmitt also claims that the friend/enemy distinction which is the basis for politics can not be avoided with liberalism especially because there are two different focuses of liberalism (ethics and economics). Thus Schmitt is telling us that even if we try to create a state that is liberal, where the government is only a protective body that does not involve itself in warfare, we can not avoid becoming involved in politics and thus can not avoid making friends and enemies, making political decisions, and eventually creating a different (but essentially the same) type of state government.

By discussing the inevitability of friend and enemy distinctions in politics, Schmitt is able to draw the conclusion that any movement, state, group of people, etc. will become political if there is any sort of difference in opinions and/or goals that creates friends and enemies. Thus he does not allow us to remove politics from many aspects of life or types of ideologies, such as liberalism. However, even if Schmitt is concluding that liberalism can not remove itself from politics as advocates of liberalism often want to, maybe there is still hope for liberalism in that it could be the closest ideology/movement that allows the people a great amount of power and is very removed from politics.

2006-10-25T04:33:00.000-04:00

If I understand Schmitt's thesis correctly, he states that politics is, at its core, the way in which people and groups of people form alliances and vendettas in the defining of friends and enemies and their struggle to secure themselves against their enemies by cooperation with their friends. Whew. And I thought the physics problem earlier today was a long winded expression.

Schmitt has an obvious physical bias (he constantly emphasizes that the practical nature of enemy entities and war is what matters, not their ideological or theoretical basis), and claims that only the participants in any given situation are capable judges of who they may view as friends and who as enemies. Furthermore, enemies have to be identified existentially, and anyone is an enemy with whom one has a grievence potentially great enough to come to blows over; there is no essential definition of an enemy (unless one can swallow "Someone with whom you are fighting").

The way Schmitt uses the world "political," then, is very different from the way we use it in our day to day lives. Rather than assigning any action or discussion that has to do with running the affairs of the public the adjective "political," Schmitt reserves that characterization solely for those interactions in which violence, the prevention of, or the preparation for, is the primary concern of the participants. A large part of Schmitt's criticism of liberal government is that it blends the social goals of a people with the affairs of the state (p. 22)(welfare, for example, or any non-foreign affairs related matter our modern government deals with), which strictly speaking deal only with the use of the foreign service and the military.

This seems clear enough, but what I don't understand is how Schmitt describes the relationship between the universal association (the political) and the others (religious, economic, etc.), that is, the process of determining friends from enemies. It seems to me that of course we do not choose our friends from our enemies but through the lens of our other allegiances (to a religion, a social class, a nationality, what have you), but I don't understand Schmitt's interpretation. He seems to at once set the political association above all the others and then also to assume that we choose our political allegiances with the same clarity and directness that we do our others, while it seems to me that this cannot be the case.

2006-10-25T01:54:00.000-04:00

The State and Violence

The one thing that I found very interesting about Schmitt's "The Concept of the Political" is how the concept of violence is tied in with the concept of politics. Basically Schmitt is saying that the state creates the friend-enemy distinction, which is the marker of all things political, and that following from the ability to make the enemy distinction is the possibility of physical violence. One of the reasons that I found this so interesting is that it sounds very familar to some of the points Weber made in "Politics as a Vocation." Specifically how Weber claims that the state "lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory" (p. 33). Thus, it seems that both Weber and Schmitt see the state and violence as being almost two sides of the same coin, of being intricately linked together. I would say that I agree with Weber's point more so than with Schmitt. I do believe that the a key marker of the state is the ability to legitimately use force. After all, the use of force by terrorist groups, criminal gangs, and rebel groups are all widely condemned because they are not states and so do not have the authority to act violently. This is also the reason why no one complains when states use force to go after these groups, because they (the states that is) have the authority to do so. However, it is with Schmitt's point that I am not sure that I agree with. I am not totally convinced that the all political relations can be boiled down to the friend-enemy dynamic. Although, I must say it does seem rather logical and to make sense. Still, I feel that politics is not that simple, that there must be more to it. I dont really know, perhaps I will have a better idea after our class discussion.

Another interesting point in Schmitt's work is his statement that if there was ever a unified world government that there would be no politics, because there would be no enemies. He says that since we are all part of humanity in this world government it is impossible to brand anyone as an enemy and this is a key part of the political. Although this is a very intersting point I dont really agree. I think that there would still be politics even in a unified world government. At least I believe there would be internal politics as we understand the term, althgouh I think perhaps Schmitt would dismiss that as not truly political. It seems likely that if there was a world government politics (even as Schmitt uses the term) wouldnt fade away because I think it is highly likely that the government would create a threat so that they could brand them as the enemy, thus meeting Schmitt's definition of the political. Perhaps they could even percieve of an alien threat and create a friend enemy grouping along the lines of human vs. alien just like the I.F. did in Ender's Game. I just do not think that there would be no enemies even in a unified world government.

2006-10-23T01:35:00.000-04:00

Does Ender have moral agency?

A very interesting question was posed in class as to whether Ender has any moral agency for what he did to the buggers. I would argue no he did not (and I believe this is what was decided in class as well). He did not know what he was doing and therefore he cannot be held truly responsible for his actions. After all, that is the standard we use today in our legal system. If you dont know the consequences of your actions you are not at fault. And it is fairly obvious that Ender did not understand the consequences of his actions as he played the "game" which lead to the destruction of the buggers. However, it is also just as clear that some people in the novel, after the war, are seeking to demonize Ender and make him out to be some sort of monster. The novel mentions that those who go after Graf are really trying to go after Ender. However, they are completely mistaken. As I have stated Ender is not to blame for the destruction of the buggers. It might be possible to blame Ender for the deaths of Stilson and Bonzo, but once again I really dont think he is at fault. He was not trying to kill them and both cases especially Bonzo were self-defense. The real issue I think is with Stilson and the attacking him while he is down. Although I still thing Ender is blameless, as that attack was merely an extension of self-defense. As he put it he had to win not just this fight but all the fights so that he would be safe in the future as well. Therefore, I think that Ender is not truly at fault for the deaths of Stilson, Bonzo, or the extermination of the Buggers.

Another interesting thought I had during our class discussion on whether the I.F. could have perhaps communicated with the buggers was how much that discussion reminded me about the debates on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Today there is much discussion over whether or not the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary. Some say that the Japanese were already prepared to surrender and thus the bombing was an unnecessary waste of human life. This seemed to be the point some people were attempting to make in class in regards to the buggers. That it was unnecessary to destroy them, as they were not going to invade us again. However, in both cases (although there is I believe some evidence to the contrary in the Japanese case and this is what really fuels the debate) the respective military commanders did not know the enemies intentions and had to make decisions on what they already knew. In both cases they came to the conclusion that the enemy was still hostile and had to be destroyed. Thus, both the elimantion of the buggers and Hiroshima and Nagasaki became justified and necessary. I personally of the opinion that both the destruction of the buggers and Hiroshima were justified. The I.F. had no way of knowing that the buggers were not goign to attack again, therefore it made sense to take out the buggers. Likewise the Allies needed a decisive end to the war to stave off a devastating invasion of the Japanese Home Islands and based on the ferocity of Japanese resistance to the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa they had no reason to suspect that the Japanese were going to give up easily. Therefore I do not fault Truman for ordering the destruction of Hiroshima. I think he did what he had to do based on the given information and I think that the same can be said of the I.F. commanders. Regratably I do not think that the more peaceful options were feasible options in either case.

2006-10-22T22:04:00.000-04:00

When Katie dismissed the class focus on whether the I.F. does enough to demonstrate that the buggers are unintelligent (not "people" according to one of our previous discussions), I think she hit upon the key distinction that must be made between reading "Ender's Game" with a focus on political theory and with a focus on issues of ethics. Orson Scott Card, in certain other writings, demonstrates that he wishes he could equate personal ethics to political policy (I am referring to his belief why President Clinton should have been impeached, which is both refreshing and high minded, but impractical in the extreme), but such has rarely been the case in history, and I see no point in confusing the two, just because the author would like it that way. Now, since Ender is usually little more than a pawn in his own game, let us consider the question of when it is ethical for a species or government to make war on and obliterate another.

As much as the focus of the novel is on Ender and his jeesh, I think the characters who have involved ethical dilemmas are the members of the International Fleet and Hegemony, represented by Anderson, Graff and Mazer Rackham. As Katie said, no one can seriously doubt the intelligence of the buggers (without doubting the intelligence of, say, ancient Babylonians [have you ever met a Babylonian you could talk to? I thought not]), so the executive officers (not Graff and the others in overall command, admittedly) are faced with the real moral dilemma of whether or not to loose their most potent weapons on another species.

Now, the statemanship level options presented to the I.F. after the Second Bugger War are threefold: to focus on trying to acheive communication with the buggers, to focus on military defeat of the buggers, thereby rendering them harmless, and to attempt the one while pursuing the other. Betting solely on the hope that the buggers could, in fact, be communicated with and that they were a peaceful people after all is rank madness if one's goal is to survive, tantamount to a Jew strolling through downtown Berlin in 1940 and talking politics, hoping this time the Nazis will prove reasonable. Because ansible communication reaches only as far as the ships that carry them, and because no one understands the strange dreams Ender experience while on Eros, attempting to communicate at all with the buggers would have required the attack fleet to hold in position - vulnerable position - while in contact with the enemy. Given these circumstances, and assuming that the survival of humanity is of paramount importance, it is very reasonable to eradicate the buggers. Remember that when the first fleets were launched, the bugger were twice proven not to be enemies, but dangerous beings with a tendancy to kill humans. This is an important distinction, becase in english, the word "enemy" carries a certain connotation of equality and agency, a sense that the enemies are at odds with each other for a reason, while buggers are as alien as the stars, and there is no relationship with them other than one of mutual violence, and no reason for that relationship. We might as well cause dangerous asteroids "enemies" but for the lack of intelligence.

Which makes the real question: is intelligence worth protecting, even at the cost of your own safety? Card's own answer is maybe, but at some point, you become the dangerous one to be put down. The I.F. seems to think not; willingly turning Ender loose on the buggers. Ender himself only doubts his right to harm those who threaten him retrospectively; Card writes not one word of concern about the damage Ender inflicts on Stilson and Bonso until after the scene is over and Ender is physically safe to feel remorse. For my part, I have never had a great intellectual discomfort with the idea of killing, provided reasonable necessity (though I am thankful I have not had to test my resolve).

Finally, in defense of Graff's "using" of Ender as a tool, I would point out the Ender is never blackmailed, only pursueded. Ender is never threatened or ordered to assume command (the fact that such probably would be ineffective is beside the point), and in fact could halt the missions at any time in a fit of pique. When he is brought around, it is not by coercion or bribery, but by propaganda in the form of his sister, Valentine. Pay close attention to the top of page 244; if the government is to be damned for threatening individuals, damned for buying them off, and damned for playing to their sense of duty, then it is left with no motivator whatsoever.

2006-10-21T14:30:00.000-04:00

Euphemisms

"All political concepts...have a polemical meaning. They are focused on a specific conflict and bound to a concrete situation. The result...is a friend enemy grouping and they turn into empty and ghostlike abstractions when this situation disappears. Words such as sate, republic...are incomprehensible if one does not know exactly who is to be affected...by such a term." (p. 30-31) Schmitt is talking about a precise definition of things and ideas, to make a clear understanding of friends and enemies as well as policies. This strive for clarity can be wholely disrupted, completely destroyed, by the use and popular acceptance of euphemisms.

Now, I do not mind some euphemisms, specically ones who's point is to spare needless pain for some individuals. It's ok to say that someone has "passed on" rather than to say become a slab of meat, kicked the bucket, or punched their ticket. The problem with euphemisms is when they are used to deliberately obscure what is happening, to confuse with language. I'm referring to calling executions and assassinations as "terminating with extreme prejudice", blowing up a target as "servicing the target", and friendly fire deaths as "unintended allied casualty incident".

Its not only the government that employs such shadings. A plane crash can be, and has been, called an "uncontrolled ground contact". Does an uncontrolled ground contact mean they landed bit harder than usual? a wheel strut break? you don't know. But when someone says the plane crashed, its pretty obvious what happened. Uncontrolled ground contact turns the question of "how many people where killed" to "was it serious?" or "how much damage did the plane take".

What's also interesting is how companies refer to lay offs. As mentioned by George Carlin "Nor would I be thrilled to be told that, beacuse the company was downsizing, rightsizing, or scaling down, I was part of an involuntary force-reduction. I really don't are tht my company is reshaping and streamlining, and that, in order to manage staff resources, a focused reduction is taking place, and I'm one of the workers being transitioned out. Just fire me, please!"

People need to watch out for euphemisms. Areguments can be completely changed and questions swept under the rug if the terms ones use and how one defines things are altered. We need to be careful, or the future may become "double plus ungood".

2006-10-20T14:41:00.000-04:00

In the whole discussion of whether the I.F. could have or should have tried to communicate with the buggers, I wanted to re-mention what I said in class. The I.F. did not know what the motives of the buggers were, the I.F. did not know if the buggers would strike again, the I.F. did not know if it was possible to communicate with the buggers, and the I.F. most importantly did not want to know any of this information. The I.F. could have tried to investigate the buggers before decideing to wipe out their species forever, but the I.F. did not want to investigate. An investigation could reveal that the buggers were not going to attack again, but then the I.F. would not know what to do. Would they sign a peace agreement with the buggers? If the I.F. still went through with the invasion after they found out that the buggers no longer had a motivation to kill humans, then the I.F. would be knowingly committing a moral crime. It was mentioned in class multiple times that this discussion does not matter because the purpose of the I.F. was to protect Earth and get rid of the bugger threat. But why does history always have to happen this way? Why can't we change the way we approach things that are different or threats to us? Could we read the novel as a warning and then decide to defy history and do away with unnecessary destruction in the future? Or are we always stuck with unnecessary violence because it is part of human nature?

I also want to comment briefly on something that I thought of right at the end of class. We discussed how a child (11yr old) could be mature enough or have been trained well enough to successfully kill an entire species when no adult felt that they could do it. Most of us thought that a child would be more creative and not be held back by all of the rules and experiences that adults base their decisions upon. Given that, however, it is still hard to imagine that an 11 year old boy could pull this off. This reminds me of the ever-present nurture vs. nature debate. Women used to have children and begin a family at age 11 or so. We forget that humans have lived up to a different set of "developmental norms" over time. Maybe Ender is simply a wonderful example of what a human can do in a nurtured situation. He was born (nature) with a predisposition to be excellent at certain things such as clear thinking and analysis but then he was taught (nurtured) to be a soldier from an early age. Thus, he became the commander that he did.

2006-10-20T00:39:00.000-04:00

Could Ender have done it had he known?

Yes, he could have. Throughout battle school and throughout his life, ender has been separate, be it by design or by chance. He has been apart from even those who where considered his friends. To them, ender was always the commander, someone to be respected, admired, but never to be relatable. Ender's only attachments in the entire book are with Valentine, an attachment that he conciously ended very early in his life. What Ender has always been good with is using other people to achieve his ends, to follow through with his plans, regardless of who he hurts, even if it means hurting himself. Ender doesn't want to be like Peter, but he has a pathological drive exactly like Peter, which is what the IF wants.

I do not believe that knowing would have adversly affected Ender's performance. Beneath his emotional exterior, he is a hard hearted cold son of a bitch who finishes his enemies, completely. Ender would have gotten the job done because that is simply what he did. I think a greater danger lied in the fact that the IF was finding the nature of the simulator from him. As can be seen in the last fight in the battleroom, if ender feels that the system is "playing" him too much or too hard, he will cut the strings, and protest the only way he can, refuse to cooperate.

Ender is cold, but he chooses to be so. I think what rocked him so much in the end was not the extermination of the buggers, or the lose of all the fighting men and women, but rather being denied the ability to conciously choose that path. He breaks down because he was played, manipulated into the killings. Perversly, I think Ender feels responsible for all those deaths because he was their unwitting executioner, and would have no such qualms had he known what he was doing.

In killing these people without meaning too, I think ender draws a parallel to peter in that peter, while being very much in control of his violent impulses, can only choose when to left them out. He cannot decide to stop having them, or to not let them free. Peter is a master of releasing his tensions when he can so they don't grow out of his tenuous control. In killing without meaning to, without deciding to, I think ender equates this violent aspect of his with Peter's psycosis. Ender knows he is violent, he has accepted this fact, as seen at the lake on earth. What he sees as separating himself from Peter is the conscious use of violence rather than peter's need to commit cruelty.

Ender would have completed his mission had he known. All not telling him accomplished was his rejection of his unconious actions and the mental breakdown that ensued.

2006-10-18T05:37:00.000-04:00

Once again our reading brings the question of the possibilities of early and intense nurturing to the fore. Let me start by discounting any great role of eugenics or genetic engineering in creating Ender Wiggin. First, there is no indication whatsoever that Ender's parents met and married under anything but natural circumstances, and it is never made clear why the Wiggin children are picked out by the International Fleet for such attention in the first place (my reading was that all children are tested for aptitude as commanders, somehow, and the Wiggins simply came up very high). Second, it seems likely to me that if Ender had, in fact, been the product of genetic engineering, he would have been trained from birth as a soldier, rather than from the age of six. This would have allowed him to manifest his talents earlier, as well as precluded the distraction of conceptualizing a "normal" childhood that he lacked at Battle School. Third, it is established in "Shadow of the Hegemon" and "Shadow Puppets" that Bean, in fact, is the product of genetic engineering, and illegal engineering at that. Throughout Card's spinoff "Shadow" series (and especially in "Ender's Shadow") Bean is compared to Ender as perhaps more intelligent and technically adept but less able to inspire loyalty and cooperation in subordinates - a comparison that I think is highly indicative that Ender is not genetically altered, as the major alterations to Bean's genes are for precisely the increases in intelligence and learning that he is credited with.

Now, I admit that none of this proves that Ender is *not* the product of unusual tampering with his conception, and certainly the talents of his siblings Peter and Valentine as well as his own shrewd analysis and handling of Stilson early in the novel (pre-Battle School) indicate that there is *something* odd and superlative about the Wiggin genes, but it is as easy to attribute this to coincidence due to authorial liscense as genetic engineering.

But at any rate: What is with these kids? All of these eight and nine year olds are thinking in terms of strategy and tactics at levels that officer corpsmen are expected to perform at. The reader certainly notices, Anderson and Graff notice (p. 67), and even the smarter Battle Schoolers notice (p, 108) that the child officers do not think on the same level as other children their age, or even as many normal people. Not just in terms of military skill, but also in social interactions such as Alai's mournful rejection of Ender's outreach the children in the novel (not just Battle Schoolers) display astonishing adroitness. "'Salaam, Alai.' 'Alas, it is not to be.' 'What isn't?' 'Peace. It's what salaam means. Peace be unto you'" (p. 170). And is it just me, or does Ender, in the last paragraph starting on page 84, reinvent the concept of third generation warfare?

2006-10-18T03:09:00.000-04:00

Child Soldiers in Ender's Game

I find it very interesting how the I.F. uses child soldiers to direct its forces in the assault on the buggers. As Lauren suggests in her previous post (http://envisioningfall2006.blogspot.com/2006/10/unlike-great-majority-of-class-i-hadnt_17.html) children are more creative and less risk averse than adults because they have experienced less and not been able to learn from their mistakes. She references the text where Mazer tells Ender that he would be too cautious to fight the buggers again. I agree with Lauren here but I think the exact reason that he would be too cautious should be explicitly stated. Mazer would be hesitant to take too many risks because he, unlike Ender, understands the consequences of his actions. He knows that every mistake he makes costs the lives of soldiers fighting around the bugger worlds. Thus, he would be extrememly cautious. Ender on the other hand is kept ignorant of this fact and so is not adverse to taking extreme action as he believes his is just playing a game. As a side note I find that it is an intersting bit of foreshadowing about the true nature of the "game" when Mazer severly upbraids Ender for losing too many ships, telling him that he cant let that happen.

I think that one reason many states/guerilla groups use child soldiers is that they are less risk averse both because they lack general life experience due to their age and so dont know they are making mistakes, and also because they haven't fully grasped the concept of their own mortality. This second part is very useful for armies when the child soldiers are placed directly in harms way, but within the context of Ender's Game it doesnt really help the I.F. very much as they do not put the children directly in harms way. Another benefit of using child soldiers from a military point of view is that they do not have a fully developed moral compass. Thus, it is easier to get them used to the idea of killing and doing horrible things to other people. After all a soldier who wont kill the enemy and balks at the prospect of harming others is no good to an army. This issue may have played into the rationale for the I.F.'s use of child soldiers. It is difficult to tell since they hid the true nature of the "game" from the children it would seem that they didnt fully expect the kids to be ok with actually killing buggers. Yet at the same time I would think that the age would be a safeguard in case the truth behind the "games" was ever known. I think it would be easier to convince children that there was nothing wrong with killing the buggers in mass numbers than adults. I think that they would have less moral qualms about it. Or at least that is the what I have heard about why armies use child soldiers. Although Ender did seem quite shaken up when he realized what he had done.

This leads me to my last point which is the similarity of Yod and Ender. The similarity that I am refering to is that they are both essentially conscious weapons. The only difference is that while Ender realizes he is a weapon he doesnt realize when he is being used. But they both recognize what they are and it causes both of them immense moral anguish. I think this is part of the tragedy of the use of child soldiers which the book portrays. It shows how the children are used as tools and nothing more. They are deprived of a childhood and as is stated in the novel the book points out they are not really children in the proper sense of the word. That this is preseneted as a very bad thing represents the moral outrage that the majority of the world feels whenever children are used in combat. This is why, despite the advantages of child soldiers enumerated above, their use is frowned upon by the world community and in fact I believe it is outlawed by a number of treaties.

2006-10-17T16:19:00.001-04:00

Unlike a great majority of the class, I hadn't read Ender's Game prior to this week. It was very interesting and really a "page turner" for me. There is one part of the novel that I would like to clear up. In regards to the intelligence of the children and the request from the I.F. that the Wiggins have a third child- is this implying that the I.F. is engaging in some sort of selective breeding process? How else would these children have the intelligence and motivation that they did? Or is Orson Scott Card trying to create a commentary on the (inferior) intelligence of the masses? Maybe Card believes that with the development of technology and with the oppression of intellectual questioning that adults and the masses in the future will have a tendency to not seek knowledge. To take this idea one step further, maybe Card believes that only children have the imagination that was necessary to fight the buggers in the end. During adolescence and adulthood we learn rules and regulations and have experiences that eventually hold us back from being as totally creative and daring as children are. I can't find the exact page in the text but during Mazer and Ender's introduction Ender asks Mazer why Mazer can't just fight the buggers again. Mazer tells Ender that Mazer has lived too long and that he is too cautious in certain situations...they need Ender because he will make bold decisions that adults have learned not to make.

I really enjoyed the way that the novel ended. Ender realized that the buggers had been trying to communicate with him. Ender learned the lesson that humanity seems to continually learn and disregard- that if we all just negotiated and took a step back and tried to understand each other that we would not need as much violence to settle conflicts. I wonder if Ender ever realized, however, that if he were to repopulate a planet with buggers that once he died the humans after him might not uphold a peaceful relationship with the buggers. What is to stop humans in the future from fighting with and trying to kill off the buggers? Will Ender's text "Speaker for the Dead" be so powerfully religious and influential that humans in the future will not harm each other? It seems as though Ender would never be able to prevent the inevitable future which would include violence.

One last side note. Does anyone have any idea why the random racist comment was included in the novel on page 61? Alai and Ender are becoming friends and Ender says: "Hey, we can't all be niggers." and then Alai grinned and said: "My grandpa would've killed you for that." and then Ender says: "My great great grandpa would have sold him first." and then the discussion is dropped. The comment did not seem to have a place in the novel other than to maybe point out that in the future race relations are better than they are now.

2006-10-17T16:19:00.000-04:00

2006-10-16T01:29:00.000-04:00

I, just like Lauren in her last post, also found our discussion in class on the differences between creation for men and women in the novel He, She, and It very interesting. However, in some key respects I disagree with the conclusions that seemed to be drawn both in class and in Lauren's post. For starters I think that Shira's reasons for having Ari have been significantly downplayed. I think that it is important to remember that Shira had Ari specifically to save her marriage (at least that is my reading of the novel. I seem to remember it being more specifically adressed in the novel than what was quoted in class but I dont remember where it was). Thus, she created Ari as a tool, and I believe that this was to a large extent overlooked in class and in Lauren's post. We seemed to agree that Woman created just to create with Ari as an example, and I do not feel that this is always the case in the novel. In fact I believe Ari is an example of just the opposite. However, I will concede as Lauren points out that Shira did not endevor to destroy him when he failed in his intended purpose, nor did she make any efforts to fully control him as Judah or Avram did to their creations. Yet this does not make up for the fact that Ari was indeed created as a tool, thus belying the claim raised in class that women create for the sake of creating and men create to make tools for themselves.

My second major point of contention is that Judah and Avram are lumped together in their attitudes toward their creations. This is, in my opinion, a poor way to read the novel. Although they both tried to control their creations their attitudes to them were quite different. The biggest difference in their attitudes was about the morality of creating them. Judah throughout the novel was never sure that he did the right thing in creating Joseph, even though he ended up saving the ghetto. Avram on the other hand always felt that Yod was a tool for him to use and that there was no moral ambiguity at all. He really didnt see any difference between Yod and a hammer. It never even entered his mind that Yod could be a human. Judah, in my opinion, was more confused. He definitely didnt see Joseph as a human, but he did recognize that he was more than a tool. I think this is evidenced by the fact that when Judah "destroyed" Joseph he didnt do so completely, like Avram did to Yod, but rather he "destroyed" him in such a way that it was possible that someone else could revive him. I think all this is a blow to the premise that men simply create tools for them to use. Although both men in the novel did create tools they had very different attitudes about it, and I think this is something very important to keep in mind.

2006-10-15T13:52:00.000-04:00

Responsibilty

I think that the comparison with an unborn child that Lauren has made is a useful one when discussion what makes something into someone, but I have a different take on the Life vs. Choice argument. The philosophy/science is sufficiently unclear as to when a fetus becomes self aware (and, it follows, a person) that even individuals are having to guess and judge for themselves without a great amount of study. This sort of ambiguity unacceptable in a discussion of policy and ethics, so we must make the most cautious judgement possible: that the child is a person from the moment of conception onward, lest we inadvertently to unjust harm to a person.

However, I prefer to take a libertarian stance: in the same way that I would not consider any couple obliged to support a stranger who comes to their door, I do not consider such a couple obliged to support a stranger that comes from their union. If a stranger invaded a couple's home, they would have the perfect right to eject the stranger, even without regard for his life if he proved dangerous or unwilling to leave peacefully. I hold that a person cannot be party to any contract, obligated to or holding the obligation of anyone (this is the lynchpin of my argument, I think). Therefore, there can be no ethical "contract" requiring a couple to bear a child they have conceived. At this point, the only question is whether the couple in question is willing to kill a person to regain their freedom. Many will not, in any case, but I contend that this is a factor of proximity to the child, certainly, not as many people who would prohibit abortions search for a child to sponsor (two drop down menus over on the left side of the page will get you started, if you want to help a kid out).

Now, to relate this to Yod, and more generally to the question of artificial beings, I would argue that the same ambiguous problem applies in that we cannot be quite certain that Yod is intelligent, but we have good reason to think so. Taking Descartes' cogito, ergo sum as a starting point, we identify other beings as equal to us and therefore people based on how similar they are to us. A rock shares very few of our traits, so there is no particular reason (emotional or otherwise) to believe it sentient. A chimpanzee, on the other hand, poses a difficulty. Yod, for his part, shares some key external traits (advanced speech, indicative of higher reasoning), and lacks only fleshy similarities to a human being. Because of this great confusion, it is again necessary to assume that the subject is a person, and proceed accordingly. However, the key difference between a child that can ethically be aborted (queasiness aside) and an artificial being is that there is a definate reliance of a fetus on it's mother, making it impossible to evict without killing it. As soon as one recognises that a being is likely intelligent (a person), one cannot ethically injure or enslave it.

2006-10-14T18:59:00.000-04:00

This week's discussion was very exciting for me. I really loved reading and discussing He, She and It and I think that throwing out ideas about what makes someone a person was not only interesting but very relevant in our world today (with groups that fight for "human rights", gene therapy, cloning, moral discussions of abortion, etc.). I want to note that within the discussion that we had about "degrees of humanity" or the question as to whether persons that have mental or physical disabilities are full persons, I was surprised that no one mentioned abortion. We discussed (in reference to euthanasia) having a working brain as maybe a distinctive line to tell whether a person is "alive" or in terms of brain wave activity "dead". I think that the pro-choice and pro-life discussion fits right into ours about degrees of personhood or when one may officially be considered a human. I am pro-choice and have spent a bit of my free time at AU attending various protests in D.C. to support my position. One of the largest parts of the debate is at what stage in a pregnancy we consider a fetus "human" or alive. Primitive neural pathways in the brain are formed during week eight of pregnancy and this for many pro-choice activists is where they draw the line as far as believing that an abortion is morally right or wrong. There is also a debate about abortion in regards to whether an unborn child has rights under the law or not. Politicians debate as to whether fetuses should have rights that are separate from the rights that a mother has. Within this debate politicians must first define at what stage during pregnancy a fetus becomes human and a person, and then (after a definition is created) the government can guarantee an un-born human rights under the law.

I enjoyed the discussion that arose at the end of class about whether creation in the novel was different for men and for women. I agree with the position that for both the Maharal and Avram their creations (Joseph and Yod respectively) were meant to serve a purpose and in the end both creators were able to destroy their creations because they knew that Joseph and Yod had served their purposes. In contrast, Shira had Avi because she wanted to create life. Yes, she did hope that Avi's presence would help her marriage but when she got divorced she did not destroy Avi because he did not fix Shira's marriage. Also, when Shira is tempted to create a duplicate Yod she finally stops herself because she can not bring herself to create a "life" that will be a tool for her. Is Piercy cautioning us against the creation of artificial life or is she exposing what she believes to be important gender differences? I would like to believe that gender roles are socially constructed and that there are not that many inherent differences between men and women; however, the separate goals for creation seen in the novel (men create tools, women create life for the sake of creating it) do highlight the idea that women biologically have an inherent desire to create and protect life. I think that this novel is also an excellent cautionary tale that exposes the disasters that may occur with the creation of artificial life. In our current society there are political discussions about genetic alteration and cloning and it frightens me that we may try to create superhuman life in the future. Maybe He, She and It can caution us against such creations.

2006-10-14T15:54:00.000-04:00

Anonymous Posting

In Ender's Game, what really struck me was the amount of political activity and political awareness that seems to permiate the society. Peter and Valentine are able to amass a great deal of authority and credit by being anonynous posting. They began this career of their's with general web forum debates, which attracted a great deal of interest from the general populous, enough so that Locke and Demosthenes were able to be hired for their political idea in newspaper columns. Is this like the phenomenon of talk radio(and do talk radio hosts rally extert that much influence?)? Are there bloggers out there who recieve a great deal of influence because of their blog postings? Do they really get high enough in the upper circles of leadership to be given mlitary secrets and a lever into the workigs of the world government on one hand, and the mass public support on the other? To enable this, especially with obvious pen names, they must have a population that is incredible active on the nets, to such an extent that the computer networks have taken the top spot as primary entertainment.

I personally like the idea that a disguised commentator can recieve such influence on the web, and have it translate into real power and have real consequences. I like the idea that political notions and thinking can be stripped of a name plate, and just be seen for the merits of the arguement (in locke's case) or for the emotions it evokes (in demosthenes' case). I like this divestement from maor brands, even though political philosphy of the work can still be seen. I value the anonymous writer (look at what these blogs themselves are), but I don't see it being realized on such a large scale as is seen in Ender's Game.

2006-10-13T17:38:00.000-04:00

Are women less violent than men?

The work that the presenter, well, presented was The Left Hand of Darkness. In it, a society exists in which the people are androgenous for most of their lives. In this society, social steriotyping and gender roles don't really exist because genders don't exist either. The comment was made, and also reflects an prevailing idea in not only science fiction but also society as a whole, that women are less violent than men and that a society established as either female or gender neutral would be less violent.

I tend to disagree with this idea. What exactly shows that women as a whole are less violent than men? Is it that they are physically less capable of harm than men can be due to body structure and muscele mass? Well, I know many people who would argue against the physical component of that as, lets face it, a weakling with a gun can do just as much damage as can a bodybuilder. Do women fight less often than men do be it for place in society or social pecking order? I also do not think so. Fights between women happen as often if not more so than between men. These fights can be violent, and popular sentiment has women as holding onto grudges and ill feelings longer than men do. If you take the women out of a society that presents a gender role of not being physically violent, of physical violence as unaccpetable from women (but verbal or social violence is just peachy), what is to say that the women in this new order wouldn't be just as prone to act on violent tendencies as males are? As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if you can bench press 400 lbs if you can be shot before your strength can disable your oppenent.

I find the idea of a matriarchical society free of gender roles being less violent than a patriachical society rather ironic. Trying to strip away assumptions and gender stereotypes to not place women at the disadvantage morphs into the debasement and belittling of males as brutish and inferior in this idea. Lets face it, if men and women are equal in status, wants, needs, desires, and expected behavior, how can you not expect a woman to smack someone upside the head just as often than you would a man. But don't mind me, I'm just a simplminded brute. I guess I'll be off in the corner, debasing my women, playing with my pee pee, and banging rocks together.

2006-10-11T17:31:00.000-04:00

Centralizing Man

Of course Yod is not human. Yod is Yod, species yod and genus yod. I find the Jewish/feminist viewpoint tone of the novel frustrating, reading it at this particular time, and perhaps that is why I am dismissive of Piercy's supposition of a cybernetic intelligence. Both the characters in the novel and my fellow bloggers seem hung up on whether or not Yod is a human being, or what criteria would make him such. I find this extremely ironic, given that no small amount of attention is paid to the discontinuity of the gender roles in the novel.

Let us take it for granted that Yod is a thinking, reasoning, wanting being. In an epistemelogical sense, this should be as easy as taking it for granted that one's own sister is a thinking being. Yod responds with language, informs Shira of his feelings and desires, and claims to endure no small amount of angst concerning his actual position. This displays a great deal more range and depth of character than a great many members of the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens, certainly enough to claim sentience. Now, with all his wisdom and intelligence and feeling, Yod spends the greatest part of his life attempting to imitate humans and wondering if he can honestly count himself as a human.

Humanity

Yod is not conceived with human genetic materiel, and cannot be said to have any blood relatives through which he traces a relationship to the wider human family. He has no more right or reason to claim to be or be branded a human than a sign post has to be a Romanov or Rockefeller. The significant difference between Yod and a sign post is not that Yod can make love to a woman (on page 197 he mildly protests Riva's comparing of him to a dildo), but that he can want to make love.

This indirectly brings me to my main complaint about He, She and It, and what makes it difficult to take seriously, in my eyes. While Yod is, with any rational examination, clearly not human, an incredible amount of energy is spent (both in the novel and discussions of) debating his humanity. This is because of an irrational centralizing of humanity bought into by all involved parties: the narrator, Yod, Shira et al. I find it difficult to accept that a totally novel intelligence (and domain of life, if not a new superdomain akin to the biota) should be so concerned with being human, instead of attempting to understand itself, first. Star Trek and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress both dealth with the reactions of an artificial life form better, in my opinion (Commander Data and Mike both study humanity with a clear understanding that they are not human, though Data attempts to become "more human"). It is a very sloppy mistake for a novel to link being human to being sentient and alive. The mistake is compounded in failing to establish Yod's intelligence as unique and different from human intelligence in a feminist novel so concernced with establishing feminine experiences as unique and different from masculine experiences, and comparing the two.

2006-10-11T10:19:00.000-04:00

What is Yod.

So, the completely unimaginative post of, what exactly is Yod? Is Yod sentient and if so, what does this mean for his society? The question of whether Yod is sentient and in turn, human, brings up the question of what makes one human? If it is based on having a natural body, then almost all of the population of the book become disqualified, and this question leads to a dangerous definition of how much of a "natural" body this requires and how functioning this body must be to be considered human. Goodbye Stephen Hawkin, you other than human being. If it becomes an idea of how the mind works, showing initiative and such, then how are we defining initiative? If, in Yod's case, it would be doing things his programers never imagined him to do, then what do we do about human beings that never take the initiative? If they spend their whole life being unimaginative, pegs in a board, do they qualify as human? Or as some kind of sub-human? Do people who spend their life and career being inventive and creative then become more human than everyone else? Is that person pouring milk on themselves while eating a mayonaisse sandwhich in their underwear on the floor of a "performance space" become more human than a patent lawyer or an insurance underwriter? Defining what is human is somewhat a tricky thing and should not necessarily depend on exhibting sentience. Just because one can say, I think, therefore I am, does not necessarily grant one the right of human.

2006-10-11T09:53:00.000-04:00

Our class discussion this week will no doubt turn to what makes a being human (or possess humanlike qualities) or not and I think that the answer to this is the desire for free will. Even though Yod was under Avram's control at certain times and Yod was forced to destroy himself because he ultimately had to carry out Avram's orders, Yod experienced the desire for free will which made him appear to be human. His socialization training took on a new level and he eventually became so similar to a human because he decided to learn and act in certain ways based on his own will. Similarly, the Golem sought free will and just before he was put to sleep he tested his freedom by trying to cross the bridge. Although he found that he was unable to completely act on his own free will he did desire freedom and this made him appear even more humanlike. For example, the first time when Joseph, the Golem, leaves the ghettos and enters the rest of Prague he has a strong desire to leave forever and seek out a new life where no one knows that he is not human. I think that the desire that both Yod and Joseph have to renouce their masters and seek out simple, free lives makes them very humanlike (they want to be human).

In the last few pages of the novel Shira has an overwhelming desire to recreate Yod, but in exactly the way that she wants him to be- not as a cyborg whose sole purpose is for destruction and security. It seems as though at times we all have these same desires- a desire to become a creator for the purpose of achieving perfection and a desire to find someone who exists for the purpose of your pleasure. Shira destroys the crystals because she decides that she should not disobey Yod's final wishes (that no cyborgs like him should ever be created) and she never wants to succumb to future temptation. Part of Shira's decision to not make a Yod replica seems to stem from the idea that to be truly human you have to possess free will. Shira realizes that in making a Yod replica she would never be able to bring Yod back because the certain set of circumstances that led Yod to love Shira would never be replicated. Without the new creation of Yod desiring free will he would never be able to replace the original Yod.

2006-10-11T00:45:00.000-04:00

Having completed He, She, and It and having looked at the theme for this week's class, the topic for this blog is staring me in the face. The obvious question to ponder for this week's blog is the question of whether or not Yod is human. Of course there are other topics to talk about in the book but really I think we all know that this is the question that will consume most of our class time so I might as well get the jump on it now. So is Yod human? To answer that question we first must ask ourselves what makes one human? (conveniently our theme of the week. Coincidence? I think not.) To be a human do you have to be born from completely natural means? I would argue no, because if that were the case then many people today born from invitro fertilization or with the help of other such reproductive aids would have to be considered not human, and that is not something that I prepared to accept. Therefore, I do not see the fact that Yod was not born naturally as being an impediment to him being a human. What about Yod's machine parts. He is not wholly biological, so does this prevent him from being human? Again I would argue no, because there are many people today who are not wholly biological. There are lots of people with artifical limbs or non-biological augmentation to their organs (pacemakers etc), and to accept that not being completely biological means you cant be human, means that these people arent human, and once again I cant accept this. Thus, Yod's machine parts do not prevent him from being human. It could be argued that I am comparing apples and oranges because Yod has infinitely more mechanical parts than anyone with an artificial limb, but I think that it is too difficult to make a distinction based on degree of mechanization. Where would you draw the line. How could you call someone with 51% mechanical parts not human but someone with only 49% mechanical parts human? It simply doenst make sense. A more serious problem from my point of view is the fact that Yod's personality and mind is all the result of computer programming. However, on closer examination this is not as big a problem as it would appear. After all, Yod's programming is analagous to the genetic sequences in humans. Also just like humans Yod's personality was not the inevitable outcome of his programming (read genetic code). His personal experience also played a role in shaping his personality, just like in humans. Thus, from this cursory examination of the question I can not find any reason why Yod should not be considered a human. I would conclude that Yod is a human, although perhpas I shall change my tune after our class discussion.

2006-10-10T15:41:00.000-04:00

Lauren was discouraged by the prospect we discussed of a neverending cycle of charismatic revolution, traditionalist institution building, and stagnation out of respect for tradition. That humanity might infinitely repeat this cycle is indeed intimidating (the concept of forever always is, if one takes the time to ponder it), but there is no particular reason it should be disheartening. In all the chaotic violence that has accompanied the progress from rule by priest kings the advanced political philosophy and republican government, on some level it is a comfort to know that there have been constants. Perhaps the endless waltz of war, peace and revolution (if you'll forgive me referencing a terrible movie) may not itself be a sign of progress for humanity, but it provides a useful framework for examining history. While there are advances such as democracy (if one is willing to admit that democracy is indeed a more sophisticated form of government than divinely mandated overlords), they come about in ways that we can analyze and understand. Usually a revolution (the French being the most famous case, or perhaps our American Revolution), but sometimes a peaceful transition. Thailand is a good example of the latter, where traditionally the parliament has ruled with the consent of and respectful deference to the king. Even with the recent overthrow of the government, the most traditional authority of the royal family has been preserved and in fact approved the new interim government.

I think really our understanding of history as a succession of war-peace-revolution/revolution-institutionalization-stagnation cycles is merely a useful tool, not a judgement on the prospects of mankind. If some people are discouraged by this understanding, a certain philosopher spoke to their fears better than I can. "What people reproach us with is not, after all, our pessimism but the sternness of our optimism. . . The existentialist portrays a coward as a coward because of his deeds, a coward who makes himself a coward; a hero who makes himself heroic" (Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sarte). In any science or philosophy, it is more important to find useful ways of understanding what we study than rending judgement on it before the idea is fully formed.

2006-10-09T15:50:00.000-04:00

Does charisma from the office or from the person matter?

No. Charisma from the person can produce both the demagogue feared by the founding fathers, the Demothensysis of an age, or can produce the statesman valued by Wilson, a Peracles. A leader who draws charisma from the office can produce a Hirohito or a Bill Gates. A leader in power can inspire both the good and the bad in those they influence regardless of how they actually achieve the office. As has been seen before, the masses can be played like a harp by those who know how, be it through oration and personal appeals or through the machinery authority and power. The question then arises, why do we care to distinguish the types of charisma? As Weber would say, as long as you are in power, you are legitimate, and legitimacy does not depend on who is right. One must be pragmatic in that you deal with who is in power rather than who you wish to be in power. If you do not like who is in power, attempt to overthrow them. Do not go on wishing for what is not, but work for what you wish it to be. Does a leader who is elected by popular appeal prove to be harder to depose than those who do not rule with a public mandate? is the power taken from the office a crutch or is it a tool in the hands of a skilled manipulator? These are the questions raised by Weber's lecture. Not only if it is more desirable to have more type of leader over another, but also whether it is harder to get rid of one or the other.

2006-10-09T01:52:00.000-04:00

In class we seemed to make a distinction between a ruler and a leader. It seemed to me that we came to the conclusion that a ruler is one who leads without any real imput from those he commands, and that a leader takes into account more input from his followers when he makes his decision. Basically the distinction is that a ruler simply commands and expects his followers to carry out his whims, and a leader will perhaps consult with his followers and they are more part of the process in decision making. However, I do not really believe this semantic distinction is accurate, nor do I think that Weber himself would either. For it seemed to me that our distinction was entirely centered around the input of the followers in the differentiation between a ruler and a leader. Yet this seems to fly in the face of Webers statement that the ruled must acquiesce to the power that their rulers (or leaders) have over them. This statement seems to say that there really is no distinction between a ruler and a leader. In both instances the followers must agree to accept their position as followers. Therefore our popular concpetion of a leader leading with the acceptance of those who follow him and a ruler merely dictating policy with no thought to those he commands is false. They are in reality one and the same concept. Although they still have different connotations to us. We can still think of a leader as being somehow more democratic than a ruler. We just have to remember that in both cases the ruled still accept their position, and that the actual differences between them are microscopic at best and non existent at worst.

2006-10-08T18:20:00.000-04:00

The end of our class discussion left me feeling a little hopeless in terms of the future of politics. Weber proposes that there is a pattern to leadership that continues to repeat itself. A traditional government is in power and a charismatic leader changes the government because both the leader and the people are not content with the traditional government. Eventually, the leader gives up his power (or dies) and another traditional government develops, except this time the government is based off the ideas of the charismatic leader. What does this mean in terms of the future of world politics and governments? Will history always repeat itself in the sense that governments will always follow this general pattern of "change"? I wish I had Paul's foresight so that I could answer this question.

It seems as though governments will continually change because different types of rule will become necessary to fit the needs of people and the amount of power that the government has (strong, centralized or weak, decentralized for example) will change according to the politics of the time period. However, governments will probably always become traditionalized because it seems to take a lot of encouragement and discontent for people to revolt against their government or for a charismatic leader who is ready to overthrow the current political system to rise to power. Therefore, I think that the type of traditional system will change over time but that governments will never be able to avoid becoming traditionalized.

2006-10-04T15:24:00.000-04:00

Reading the Vocation Lectures illuminates just how influential Max Weber's thinking still is today. I had not before known who coined the thinking of a state's existence relying on a monopoly of force, even though I had of coursed absorbed the idea in general government studiesd even before high school. The actual reading of Weber, I have to also note, is steady, but very slow; I found myself stopping to underline and ponder sentences two or three times on each page, sometimes.

On Politics, I believe there will be enough discussion, so I only present a caveat to the idea of a state's monopoly on force. Since it is a very fair complaint of anarchists and human rights advocates that states often misuse the force that Weber claims they have the sole right to, the state must not be given entire freedom to judge itself where to use that force. It is an equally fair complaint, however, that when there is *no* monopoly on violence, violence is even more prevalent (Somalia is a good example), the state must retain the sole claim to violence. It follows that the state must be the only actor in any territory that can use violence legitimately, but the amount of violence it can use must be regulated. The analogy that came to my mind was that of a natural economic monopoly, as with water supply. It is best when water (or violence) is distributed and organized by one company supplying water (or police force), but the water supplying company must be regulated so that it doesn't take advantage of its monopoly at the expense of others.

On Science, I would like to point out the Weber seems to segue away from the question of whether the study of "science" (quotations because of the significance of translation error noted in the book) can be fulfilling somewhere between pages 14 and 18. At the very least, Weber poses the pointed question "Since science is always changing, and cannot even teach us of ethics, is it a worthwhile thing to dedicate one's life to?" One hopes that he does not mean to decry scientific inquiry in a fit nihilism, but I cannot find a place where he returns to confront the question, and plan to ask if someone else has, this Thursday.

2006-10-04T09:40:00.000-04:00

Although Weber's writing style is hard to follow at times, I really enjoyed this work. He discussed briefly how Western politics and leaders have developed and then he focused on what "makes" a politician and then what "makes" the best politician. I thought that his discussion on persons who live "for" politics and ones who live "from" was interesting. He suggests that those who can only live purely "for" politics are those who have independent means (or the wealthy class). This then means that the majority of politicians have two goals to live "for" politics or for the defense of what they deem politically important and to live "from"politics meaning that their profession as a politician provides them with money to live. I think that this distinction is interesting when applied to Dune. Paul, as a politician, lives "for" politics because he has only political motives including: to make the Harkonniens leave the planet, to regain control, and to bring water to the Fremen. Paul is in no way motivated by a need of spice or water (which could be in place of money).

Weber also discusses (p67) how the process of selecting leaders has changed over time. In the past leaders were selected based on reason, then they were selected based on factual evidence, and then Weber argues that in the present day (for him the 1800's) leaders are selected on purely emotive qualities. Leaders manipulate the mass population by relating current issues to the emotions of the population (does this sound familiar to anyone?- George Bush gaining votes because he is a"good Christian boy that is not too smart", or leaders still evoking Manifest Destiny which could be considered part of the emotional core of the U.S.). In Dune Paul appeals to the emotional side of the Fremen. He is the Muad'Dib and in assuming this role he is helping the Fremen. Because of Paul's role currently for the Fremen and his role as the one who fufills the prophecy, the Fremen feel emotionally grateful towards him and revere him. Paul becomes such a strong leader because he appeals to the emotional core of the Fremen population.

Weber's distinction between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility is also a very interesting point in his work. Weber argues that if a politician only follows ethics of conviction than he strives to never stray from his political agenda which he sees as the most morally right option. This politician will never be able to deal with ethical irrationality or the inability of others to see this politician's morally right agenda. In contrast, a politician who follows ethics of responsibility will try to achieve his political agenda but will not push the agenda once it is obvious that the population is not in favor of the agenda. Religion helps to make sense of the irrationality of the world (which is a problem for politicians who follow ethics of conviction) and religion also teaches us that if we use force to achieve our goals then we must face the consequences. Thus, those politicians who follow ethics of responsibility must be prepared to face the consequences of their use of force. Weber argues that only a person who ascribes to both types of ethics will be able to have a vocation for politics. In Dune Paul is both a spiritual leader and a political one meaning that in some ways he can ascribe his faults to himself (ethics of responsibility) and in some ways he can ascribe failures to the Bene Gessurit plan or religion in general (ethics of conviction).

2006-10-04T01:56:00.000-04:00

Ethics in "Politics as a Vocation"

One point that I found very interesting in Weber's work was the distinction he makes between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility. He mentions that an ethics of conviction is where you never compromise your principles and leave the outcome of your decision to God (or fate or some other higher power). An ethics of responsibility on the other hand is where you think about the wordly consequences of your actions before making a decision and you are not so quick to dismiss something because it violates your principles. It seems pretty clear that Weber does not much care for an ethics of conviction stating that it stems from the erroneous belief that only good can come from good and only evil from evil. In fact Weber states that often times evil comes from good and good from evil. It seems to me that Weber is saying that the ends justify the means. Up to a point I would say that I agree with Weber. I think it is irresponsible as a politician to flat out refuse to compromise your principles and the consequence's be damned. I think that a politician must always look at the consequences of any action that they take, and thus they may have to compromise their principles sometimes. Yet I will balk at saying that the ends always justify the means as I do not want to make such a broad generalization. I think such things are best determined on a case by case basis. Yet I also want to say that in some ways I respect people who simply refuse to compromise their principles no matter what the consequences. In many instances that takes a lot of courage. However, I do not think this is a luxury that can be afforded to politicians.

This issue of ethics of conviction versus ethics of responsibility is also brought up in Dune in one of the exercerpts from Princess Irulan's novels (page 401 in my copy). In it she says that there comes a point in every orthodox religion where the leaders must decide to stick with their principles or abandon them so that they can take power. This is ethics of conviction versus ethics of responsibility in a nutshell. I believe her implication is that most religions (including Paul's on Arrakis) opt for sacrificing some of their principles to take power. I also believe that this is what Weber would recommend.

2006-10-03T08:54:00.000-04:00

Monopoly of Force

If a state is defined by the borders in which it exerts a monopoly of force, then what type of category does a country such as Afghanistan occupy? They have the popular leader as described by Weber, they have an elected assembly (perversely one which guarantees women members, something the US Congress does not do), they have a nation army and policing force, but they hardly have a monopoly of force even within their own capital. The United Nations and the Allied Coalition forces hold that title in the capitol and nearby regions, while warlords and guerrilla Taliban and al Quaeda fighters control the outlying regions. According to Weber, Afghanistan is merely lines on a map, a nation that exists in paper and at the pleasure of the occupiers, but not according to the sovereignty of Hamid Kharzi. 's
Is the definition of monopoly of force only extend to an actual occupying force or does it also depend on military influence and what one country can "bully" another into doing, a projection of a states monolpoly of power? If the later is true, then it would be nations of hegemons rather than sovereign states, and maps would need to be drawn rather differently. In such a redrawing, what would allied countries be shown as, one large amorphus blob, and who would be deemed to control it? Does the world really depend on the whims of a few coutries who can exert dominance over the rest?
I think not. Politically, empires may depend on coercion of other nations, but realities dictate who puts troops where. The United States could conceivably give into its Andrew Jackson urges and invade Canada, but it's not going to. States exist beyond merely monopoly of force in a given area, but also by tacit agreement with surrounding powers, a quid pro quo arrangement.

2006-10-02T02:13:00.000-04:00

Perhaps one of the most intersting questions left unanswered in Dune is what exactly the Bene Gesserit wanted with the Kwisatz Haderach. Yes, we know they had their generations long breeding program to create the Kwisatz Haderach, their super-mentat, but what did they want to do with him when he finally arrived? This is a question that we discussed in class but never obtained a satisfactory answer to. Jeesh adresses the same question in one of his previous posts. He maintains that the Bene Gesserit suffered from goal displacement. That they in fact no longer knew what they wanted to do with the Kwisatz Haderach, but only knew that they were trying to create him. Although this is certainly a logical answer to the question it is not one that I agree with. I say this because as Dune is taking place the Bene Gesserit were very close to creating the Kwisatz Haderach. In fact they expected he might come from the union of Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen and the daughter that Jessica was supposed to have. Paul was really only one generation off. This means that as Dune is taking place the Bene Gesserit must have been thinking about what to do with Kwisatz Haderach for some time now as they drew ever closer to their goal. What this means is that even if Jeesh is right and they suffered from goal displacement then they would have come up with a new use for the Kwisatz Haderach in the years prior to Paul's birth.

I think one possibility is that the Bene Gesserit hoped to use the Kwisatz Haderach to furhter their own political goals. That they wanted to use him to gain even more power in the power structure of the empire. After all, as Paul surmised very early in the book the Bene Gesserit is all about politics (that is what he told the Reverend Mother before she tested him with the gom jabbar). It is true that the Bene Gesserit seem to have an immense ammount of political power as it is, but with the Kwisatz Haderach, one who is essentially a super-mentat with prescient abilities, behind them they could gain so much more power. In fact with such a person behind them perhaps the Bene Gesserit hoped to move out of the shadows and take power openly.

Another possibility is that after the carnage of the Butlerian jihad the Bene Gesserit took it upon themselves to make sure that the very best traits of humanity were preserved and passed down. Perhaps their breeding program was merely their way of improving the human species. This would explain their desire to seperate humans from "animals" through such testing as the gom jabbar. I think it is possible that the search for the Kwisatz Haderach was actually a secondary goal that developed later in the Bene Gesserit program. This might explain why they did not seem to have a clearly defined plan on what to do with the Kwisatz Haderach.

2006-10-02T02:02:00.000-04:00

Relgion as a social tool, in Dune, is used to rally support for an offworld Duke struggling in what ultimately becomes a game of thrones. Paul-Maud'Dib's personal charisma and the power of faith, tested by the harsh conditions of life on Arrakis, is what ties the Fremen to him and is the source of the fanatic loyalty of the Fedaykin.

It is difficult to imagine this sort of dedication and monstrous group effort without a pervasive religion constantly reinforcing the conviction of its followers. Stepping outside the Dune context, let me put forward the assertion that any mass effort depends in largest part on the dedication of those masses to, if not a religion, some overarching ideal or goal, the advancement for which individuals are to some extent willing, and expected, to sublemate their own interests and rights. Because I fear the invocation of Godwin's Law, I shall not bring up the fanaticism in Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, or the ideology of racial purity (wait a minute. . . hmmm. . .), but think at least on Second World War American responses. Propaganda has been with humanity at least as long as mass democracy, and it is hard to believe that the many leaders since then have all been wrong in estimating its effectiveness in motivating the population. A reasoning, high-minded man might have been pursueded to weld as many airplane wings or to enlist in the military by debates over fascism, the necessity of countering a growing Japanese threat, the duty to protect our allies in Europe, but what really seems to have gotten the American people behind the war effort are pictures of a double headed Hitler and Hojo monstrocity with blood stained lips, tearing down our most recognisable national treasure.

This brings up an ancient question of political philosophy: We think ourselves as humans to be reasonable, more noble and rational than the beasts of the field. Why, then, are we so susceptible to crass demonstrations and so deaf to quiet pursuasion To bring it back to our discussion of Dune: Are the Bene Gesserite and the noble houses right in their estimations of the mob, and are some homo sapiens humans, while the rest are just primates? Frank Herbert seems to think so; Duke Leto's essential estimation of Arrakis and the Fremen prove correct, though it takes his death and the exaltation of his son to the rank of messiah to vindicate him. Paul asks his father, "'How could you win the loyalty of such men?' 'There are proven ways: play on the certain knowledge of their superiority, the mystique of secret covenant, the esprit of shared suffering. It can be done. It has been done on many worlds in many times'" (p. 45). Later, the son consoles the father, "'You lead well. Men follow you willingly and love you.' 'My propaganda corps is one of the best,' the Duke said" (p. 104).

2006-10-01T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Bene Gesserit

We are still left with an unclear idea of what the Bene Gesserit hope to accomplish with their imbreeding of the house lines. What is their final goal in creating their perfect human? The Bene Gesserit seem to suffer from goal displacement. At one point they problably imagined what they wanted this saviour to do, but the details of it have been lost in the focus on the process. The selective breeding and manipulation of the Houses bacme such a consuming part of their existance that they forgot the end goals. This is hardly an unusual thing to happen to any institution or beaurocracy, as can be paralleled in growth complex theory of correctional institutions and the criminal justice system.
What does this mean if the prophesized saviour cannot be recognized by the prophets and the searching in his time? Are all saviours supposed to walk this line of disbeliefs, believed only by their close followers? This opens an interesting parallel with an almost Jesus like figure set in an Islamic religion. Again, on the idea of a Messiah, can the people whom the Messiah is to save recognize their saviour? I don't think so

2006-09-30T19:22:00.000-04:00

In my blog post prior to Thursday's class I wrote about the manipulative power that religion may have and how the novel exposes this, but then after the class discussion I re-read the apendicies and developed a different concept on the role that religion had in the novel. At the end of Appendix II Herbert discusses why the Fremen are so religious and more importantly why their religion is predominantly based on mysticism. The Fremen live in a very harsh climate that is hard to survive in. Religion helps the Fremen derive meaning from their experiences and deal with the harsh realities of their life. They must be very vigilant and rigid in many aspects of their lives. For example, if the Fremen are not careful about the way that they walk in the desert then they are at risk of being destroyed by the worms. The establishment and adherence to rules help the Fremen survive in the desert. The religion of the Fremen is deeply rooted in mysticism (including prophecies, omens, and the Missionaria Protectiva) and may also serve as a creative outlet or a break for the Fremen from the rigidity of their daily existence.

At the end of class Professor Jackson posed the question, "to what extent can religion substitute for reason or can reason substitute for religion?". I considered this question in terms of the almost necessity of religion in Fremen society (because it helps maintain rigidity and provides an outlet for creativity), the reverence that the Fremen give to Keynes, and the end of Appendex III that asks readers if maybe there is a higher being (God) involved in the events that occur. It seems as though religion and reason can not be interchanged but that they are always linked to each other. Religion seems to give the Fremen an outlet for their creative energies and gives them a reason to believe that their existence is not futile. In terms of Paul it does not really make reasonable sense that a teenager that stumbles into the desert is the Muad'Dib that will save the planet of Arrakis, but if religion is a tool for the Fremen then they need Paul to be the Muad'Dib and to help them. Possibly, by the Fremen believing in Paul he is able to fufill the prophecy. Keynes, as a scientist, was the epitome of reason because he found a way to change the environmental composition of Arrakis. However, Keynes failed to carry out his plans where religion did not fail (religion was still present in society after Keynes died and the prophecy of the Muad'Dib was fufilled). Finally, Appendex III suggests that there was a higher being that knew and manipulated the events that occurred and even manipulated the Bene Gesserit who believed themselves to be the ultimate creators of events. It seems to me that the existence of a higher being would explain and provide a reason why Paul was able to become both a spiritual and religious leader even when the Bene Gesserit believed that he was not fufilling the prophecy. A higher being explains events that beings such as the Fremen and Bene Gesserit do not understand, thus God becomes reason through organized religion.

2006-09-27T15:06:00.000-04:00

I found that the strongest (and most interesting) theme in Dune is the power of faith. The concentrated effort of an entire society is a powerful thing, but difficult to harness. Historically, religion has been an effective tool for mobilizing a population to action (witness the Christian crusades against Islam and more recent calls for jihad against first Soviet and then Western foes), and Dune is in many ways an examination of the staps a machiavellian agent might take to incite such a conflict. The hypothetical situation Frank Herbert posits, the imposition of a designed religion with a hidden agenda onto a society living under harsh conditions, examines the cultural sense that the people of the faith have been chosen by providence as the worthy few on the stage of history. As this similar hubris drove Americans accross the continent (faith does not necessarily have to be placed in a religion), so it drives the Fremen to conspire in hoarding a vast amount of water against the opression of the Harkonnens and to eventually follow their Lisan Al-Gaib, Maud'Dib, to brutal revolution against the off worlders.

What is most interesting, however, is that the entire belief system of the Fremen and their ultimate goals seem to be based off of two main sources: Liet Kynes' vision for a wet, prosperous Dune and the Missionaria Protectiva, the ancient manilpulation of aboriginal religions by the Bene Geresserit as a trump card to be played at the need of one of their sisters. The basic structure of Fremen society, then, is the product of foreign meddling, and with the arrival of Maud'Dib, their leader also is of off world origin (Princess Irulan's assertion that Paul Atreides' place is Dune aside). Now, are the Fremen a manipulated and used people, to be played so thoroghly by strangers? Or, in their assertion of supremacy over their own world and the rest of the empire, a people possessed of far more agency than either the Bene Gesserit or the Atreides/Harkonnen/Corrino houses? After all, it is the Fremen customs that Paul adopts, far more than he imposes his own system upon the Fremen.

2006-09-27T08:30:00.000-04:00

The role of religion in Dune is very interesting in that usually when we discuss the future, religion is not included in our discussion. Within our own society and in the intellectual community especially, there seems to be a growing trend of abandonment and criticism of religion. It is interesting that Frank Herbert's view of the future seems to be less developed than possibly even our world today. The system of government in Dune is feudalism, which most westernized peoples today assume is an old, barbaric system. Then, without religion Jessica and Paul would not have survived in the desert and been able to live with the Fremen. Only through Jessica's Bene Gesserit training and the original planting of false myths by the Bene Gesserit is Jessica able to become revered. Then, if Paul had not been assumed to be the Muad'Dib he would not have been able to gain control of Arrakis. Maybe it could be assumed that Herbert is trying to tell us something about the inherent nature of humans. Although, today, some of us deny that we have ties to religion maybe Herbert is saying that inherently we are predisposed to believe in a higher power, destiny, and foresight. Thus, even if we look 22,000 years or so into the future religion is still a strong, inseparable driving force in society.

However, as with most science fiction works it is hard to believe that Herbert was simply writing Dune to expose his view of what society will be like in the very distant future. Why does Dune have such a large fan base and why do so many people identify with the novel? For me, I felt as if Herbert was trying to expose a side of religion that many people do not want to believe exists. This manipulative aspect of religion has drastically shaped history for centuries. For example, during slavery in the U.S. many plantation owners used religion as another way to attempt to suppress people. Slave owners manipulated Christianity to convince slaves that they were doing god's bidding by being subservient to their masters. If they were always faithful to their masters then they would eventually go to heaven. Governments use religion as justification for their actions- look at manifest destiny in the U.S. for example. Religion is constantly being manipulated to fit a certain purpose be it justification for a conflict, a way to control the masses, or to give hope. Jessica and Paul seemed to only stay alive and succeed in regaining control of Arrakis by using religion as a manipulative tool. The Bene Gesserit planted mythical propaganda all over different worlds simply so that those who were Bene Gesserits would be able to have more power and be revered in the future. I really enjoyed what I consider to be Herbert's commentary on the manipulative power of religion.

2006-09-27T02:36:00.000-04:00

The role of fate in Dune

In my opinion one of the many themes in Dune is the issue of fate/destiny, and more specifically the inability of one to change one's destiny. The most obvious example of this is evidenced in the character Paul. Throughout the novel he constantly feels that he has a terrible purpose and he eventually finds out that that purpose is to inspire a jihad that will sweep across the universe in a wave of destruction that will drench countless worlds in blood. Upon making this terrible discovery he works to stop the jihad from happening but he ultimately comes to the conclusion that that is impossible and that the jihad will go on no matter what he does. Thus, showing that he cannot escape his destiny. What makes this really interesting though is that Paul has the gift of prescience. He can (to a certain degree) see the future, or rather see possible futures. What this means though is that he should be able to see a way to stop the jihad being launched in his name. In effect to be able to change his destiny. Yet he was not able to do this. In fact, it seemed to me, that he often was unable to use his gift to his advangtage in overcoming the obstacles in his path. All of this seems to send that message that everything that happened to Paul was meant to happen. After all, he had the ability to see alternate futures, he should know how to alter the course of events. The fact that he could not do this all the time seems to show that those events were meant to happen that way. That there was nothing that could have been done to change them. Essentially the message I get from this is that your destiny is inescapable.

I also believe this idea of destiny being inescapable is also shown in what happens with the Bene Gesserit. With their breeding program they were trying to create a superhuman. This can be seen as an effort to manipulate humanity's destiny, an effort to exercise a modicum of control over the fate of humanity. And yet in the end they failed. Their ultimate goal was achieved in Paul Atreides, but he did not come when they expected nor was he what they expected. Their efforts to bend fate to their will failed completely.

All of this ties in nicely with the religous aspect of the novel. After all, the idea of predestination is a relgious concept common in many religions. However, I dont think one should necessarily say that since destiny is inescapable nothing we do really matters. I still believe that one's actions do matter and do have an impact on the future. After all you do not know your fate so you should take matters into your own hands and attempt to shape your fate into what you will. In my opinion this is really the only way to continue to go on living if you believe that the outcome of everything is preordained as Frank Herbert seems to be implying it is.

2006-09-25T13:40:00.000-04:00

Given how our discussion turned to manipulation through religion in the last class, I thought it was rather odd to see much the same thread in Dune. Whether the Bene Gesserit had this intention when they originally where formed, in the current times of Dune, they most certainly are a mystical, religious group. Within the the Bene Gesserit, they certainly are cynical in how they achieve their ends, ends that do not seem to go to the heart of most religions. The Bene Gesserit have controlled people, played them for hundreds of year just as surely as the guild controls space travel. They do posses their "Voice", however, the real power behind Bene Gesserit comes from their status as religious leaders, prophets of sorts. They can hardly use the voice on everyone, especially when it is revelled that few who here the vioce live. Their power relies on getting people to believe, indoctrinization if you will, and then manipulating this beliefs as they wish.
The Bene Gesserit have selective breeding to produce what they see has fully human as their end goal, and will control whomever they can to acheive this breeding pattern.
Even the end result of their programs can be called into question. Freyd hardly seems the epitome of what a human should be, while Paul himself displays a coldness and detachment at times that do not endear him to the audience.
While Dune may be a tale of politics in feudal societies I also see it as a cautionary tale of the "opiate of the masses" and the way in which the masses can be controlled through this drug.

2006-09-25T01:24:00.000-04:00

In class the relationship between Christianity and democracy was raised. Specifically one of our classmates quoted Tocqueville as saying that democracy could not exist without Christianinty. I find this a very interesting statement to make indeed. For starters I do not think that Tocqueville's statement should be limited merely to Christianity. I imagine that he meant that democracy needed some form of ideology to go with it ( and I believe constrain it was his implication). I believe that Tocqueville just naturally assumed that Christianity was the best partner for democracy. I doubt he seriously considered any of the other religions or ideologies of the world as being able to fulfill this same purpose, although I believe they could. At this point I feel it is only fair to mention that I have never read Tocqueville (nor I am I sure how to spell his name) nor do I have anything to go off of on this point other than what was said in class. However this focus on Christianity versus other religions seems to miss the main point in my opinion. I do not see why democracy must come with a companion ideology. Can we not be trusted to run our own affairs without interference? Must there be something there to hold us back? I do not think so. I think it is a poor judgement on the character of humanity to say that we can not run our affairs democratically without some external boundaries being set. It as if humanity is a bunch of children who must be told what they can and can not do so they dont hurt themselves. Personally I find such a reading of the nature of mankind somewhat disturbing. I like to think that I do know what is good for me and do not need others to tell me such. Thus, by expanding such thinking it follows that humanity in general should be able to determine its own boundaries and not have them externally dictated. But, on the other hand, perhaps I am being too optimistic. I am reminded of an axiom that I have heard before that says a person is smart, but people are stupid. Perhaps a balance can be struck and I can say that democracy does not need a constraining ideology, but that it usually works better with one. Yes, I think that might work.

2006-09-22T18:32:00.000-04:00

The question raised in class of whether we can envision the U.S. without manifest destiny is interesting, but very difficult to answer. As Stephenson's work is trying to show us manifest destiny has been the guideing ideology for U.S. politics since "Plymouth Rock". Those of us who are not Christian and believe that manifest destiny is an ideology that has led to some of the most embarassing events in the history of the U.S. (slavery, killing Native Americans, "extending freedom" to the world) have a very hard time accepting that manifest destiny has, in fact, been a guiding force since the first settelers. I know that in the past (even in my last blog post) I have tried to gloss over the strong role of Christianity in our society because it is one that I do not necessarily believe is positive. Before class on Thursday I wanted to bash manifest destiny as an ideology and pretend like it could be removed from our history. However, after the class discussion I realized that it is almost impossible, even in a thought experiment, to remove manifest destiny and Christianity from the U.S. and consider what would have happened.

There was a basic consensus in class that the U.S. would certainly be a smaller country without manifest destiny because there would have been less motivation to move west (especially across the Mississippi River). I think that manifest destiny was an ideology that worked well with democracy. The ideology allowed the people and the government to all feel that expansion was the morally right thing to do. However, it seems as if the same expansion may have ocurred (without manifest destiny) if the new colonies had been ruled by a dictator or strong authoritarian regime instead of by a democratic government. A power-hungry leader may have decided that expanding westward was the best way to gain power. After considering that a dictator may have been able to create the U.S. in the same way that our democratic government expanded west, I wonder if our democracy could have achieved what it did without an ideology such as manifest destiny. It seems that the only way a democratic government could convince a population that westward expansion was positive would be if the government convinced the people it was their destiny (or in this case "manifest destiny").

2006-09-22T15:09:00.000-04:00

In class I'm afraid that my knee jerk response to a certain claim that Christianity and democracy are inextricably linked was both unclear and ill thought out, so let me here speak for a moment more cohesively.

My counter assertion is that democracy as a political system, though it does require a certain spiritual/ideological/philosophical backing, does not require specifically Christian morals and values, and that it is an accident of history that modern, Western Christianity (specifically excluding the Eastern Orthodox Church) and democracy evolved parallel to each other. The lack of modern, for example, Buddhist democracies, as Professor Jackson called to the attention of the class, is due to the fact that history simply has not been at work long enough, and has not been fortuitous enough for the concept of democracy, for those ideas to have permeated the rest of the world.

The strongest point I have yet heard for a deep link between Christianity and democracy is the
argument that the Christian focus on personal redemption and the individual's connection with God feed directly into the ideas that all humans are, on some level, of equal worth and, by the same token, deserve a measure of say in the governance of the state, which is indeed a central tenent of democracy. However, I would point out that other belief systems (any number of Western philosophies especially) exist or can be conceived that would work equally well to support a democratic institution. Certainly, one may argue that former British holdings and American occupied Japan have been in large part westernized, but it would be strange to argue that giant India has been Christianized, or strictly governed Singapore converted. Certainly, Singapore's general attidude of disdainful tolerance for conflicting belief structures has not hindered the business of the country or the conduct of it's Westminster style parliament.

On an entirely unrelated note, I disagree with the majority sentiment expressed in class. If only so the devil has an advocate, consider the nature of American expansion as discussed in Manifest Destiny: a force of American culture, both a convenient expression of practical greed for territory (the ironic tone of much of Stephanson's writing precludes the consideration that he takes the rhetoric of destiny and divine right entirely seriously) and of genuine belief (Stephanson likewise would not write a hundred-thirty-odd page book with nothing but ironic condescension). Now, consider what a new and vigorous nation might have been expected to do in the course of a century, given America's position on a resource rich continent unopposed by major powers. With a nerely rational model (such as Bismarck played with late 19th century Germany, or as the British, Spanish and French empires had played for centuries previous), it would have been perfectly reasonable to assume that forceful expansionism would have been the prevailing foreign policy doctrine. However, America has not been nearly so insistent on gaining territories as other modern great powers (witness the world's bemused disbelief turned to eyebrowed raised suprise when the Americans first said they would evacuate Cuba after the Spanish American War, and then actually did). The concept of manifest destiny certainly promoted a certain sense that Americans had the right to all of North America (which our modern sensibilities find distasteful), but it also invoked a certain sense of importance to which America as a whole felt bound to respect: somewhere between 1095 and 1776 Christendom got the idea that slaughter and battle were not the proper way to go about the work of God, and were looked upon less favorably by the men who expanded the American frontier over her first century and a half. Manifest destiny, in my opinion, lead to a slower, less violent expansionist policy during the 1800s and early 1900s in America.

2006-09-21T15:54:00.000-04:00

Can Manifest Destiny be removed?

In class is question can America be separated from Manifest Destiny was raised. I do not believe it can be. Throughout American history, Americans have held this notion of exceptionalism about themselves, started among the Plymouth Rock settlers to modern day America. Americans have always seen themselves as "better" than others, and have used this thinking for various ends, be it thinking of blacks and indians as "subhuman" to justify slavery and extermination or resistance to immigrant groups, or giving aid to other countries. American popular rehtoric is full of claims of superiority, as is many nations, and Americans as a whole believe it.
I agree with SymbolSix in his statement "what other system do you want to live in". Possibly England ;) I agree with the American model, however this does not mean it is flawed or can be changed. As I have said earlier, we also need to be careful. We can not push cultural relativism too far. I don't not believe that all cultures are equal, merely understandable. But we must also take this with a grain of salt and avoid thinking that it is American's God given right or true calling to spread light, knowledge, civilization, etc. to the less priveleged people of the world. We have as much to learn from them as they do from us.

2006-09-20T10:55:00.000-04:00

On Manifest Destiny

I enjoyed Stephanson's work because it gave me a slightly new perspective on the concept of "manifest destiny". Before reading the text I would have defined manifest destiny as a justification that individuals hold for their actions in terms of expansion, colonization, genocide, etc. I had always assumed that Christian individuals used the idea of manifest destiny, or the inherent right of Christians to conquor non-Chrisitans, for the purpose of reducing their own cognative dissonance (because they were killing or taking from people which is against Christianity). I never really considered the policies of U.S. leaders from the American Revolution to the present day to be motivated by the same concept of manifest destiny. I feel that Stephanson's overview of the philosophies that led to the concept of manifest destiny was very accurate and interesting (especially where Stephanson describes Vattel's natural law and the Bible as the justification for westward expansion and the basis for the concept of manifest destiny).

For me manifest destiny is a fairly horrific concept that has motivated the most embarrasing historical events of the U.S. which include the genocide of Native Americans and Slavery among others. However, I understand that it is easy for me to be critical of manifest destiny because I am simply analyzing the past. The U.S. would certianly not be the country that it is today if we had not had leaders that saw their goals as the correct course of action and that used manifest destiny to defend their course of action. Manifest destiny is an example of the type of justification and/or motivation that is necessary to pioneer into a new frontier. Without a Christian justification for their actions it would have been difficult for settlers and for U.S. leaders to complete westward expansion and create the powerful country that the U.S. is today. In relation to Star Trek, it seems as though the federation would be a metaphor for the U.S. in the sense that the federation sets the standards for what is good and bad, and acts upon these standards. Although in both the episodes that we watched and the movie the Borg was portrayed as an evil enemy that needed to be defeated, who is to say that the federation was correct in defeating the Borg? If we consider the conflict between the Borg and the federation from a more objective perspective (rather than the standpoint of the federation) we find that the only justification for the federation destroying the Borg is really thier own manifest destiny in a way. The federation's own ideas of what is right and wrong guide their decision to destroy the Borg.

2006-09-20T01:45:00.000-04:00

Self Satisfied White Men

Despite the above title, I intend to argue what I guess will be an unpopular viewpoint in class: namely, that manifest destiny in a broad sense, though historically flawed in implementation, is a fine and noble theory and one that not only Americans but all politically minded thinkers should cleave to. Saving that for a moment, let me add my railing protests against the shameful episodes in American history. The theory of manifest destiny has suffered the misfortune of being used improperly by variously greedy and arrogant men who have had the temerity to believe themselves worthy of taking territory and sovereignty by force. However, the most basic premise and consequence of manifest destiny, that the American idea (whatever that is) is superior to all others and therefore should be promulgated across the globe, holds true even today.

Take out the American viewpoint and territorial/economic motivations of manifest destiny for this philosphical moment. What one is left with is the conception that if an individual believes his own political and social ideology to be superior, he should promote it to others. This is entirely reasonable given two assumptions: First, the individual must wish good to his fellow man, and second, he must believe that all humans are, on the most basic level, similar and equal before the prejudices of socialization and culture take hold. All this means, really, is that a man, believing himself to have an idea that is working very well for him and that his neighboor is ultimately similar, and holding his neighbor's well being in some regard, will try to convince his neighbor to adopt his better system in favor of the neighbor's own outdated one.

Let me say now that I do believe the American system is the best one yet explored for a large community (there are arguments to be made about low-population socialisms and planned technocracies, but as one on the scale of tens of millions - much less hundreds of millions - of individuals has yet to be successful in any meaningful sense [no, the USSR does not count; I do hold personal liberties to be of great value in even a large community], I safely discount them). Since I see no profound difference at birth between myself as an American and, for example, a Korean (and indeed, I personally am more Han and Japanese than Anglo-Saxon by blood), I think it is natural for me to believe that a system that I have been socialized into and believe to be the best will be equally felicitious to someone born in Pyongyang as to me born in San Fransisco. Does it not follow that I should help this socialist fellow by expounding the virtues of my own system? Set aside for a moment your false humility for a moment and consider; don't you think your own belief system to be the best available to you (always acknowledging the possiblity that wiser minds have conceived of a better idea, and you just haven't thought of it yet)? If your system is the best for you, is it not the best for all in a grand sense (set aside cultural prejudices, let's assume you could educate someone from birth, would you rear your charge according to your own beliefs, or someone elses who you do not agree with)?

The folly of America has been to betray her own ideals in her desire to convince the rest of the world of her grand idea. It is perfectly acceptable (in the sense that there is no logical disconnect) for an authoritarian government to invade, enslave and oppress a subject nation, because authoritarian systems do not hold that individuals should be blessed with self determination or, frequently, even liberties considered basic in liberal democracy. For America to speak of self determination and the rights of man and the citizen while conducting similar imperial exercises, however, is rank hypocracy. Discourse, civil or vulgar, or even economic competition: these are the weapons in the American idea's arsenal. The Preamble to the Constitution promised liberty, security and properity; the measure of America's sucess (and the means of convincing others to accept American ideology) is how attractive those commodities are and how well the nations delivers them to its citizens and others. America's manifest destiny, the same as all other ideologies, is to unite humanity under its guidance; however, if the principles of the American experiment (which I have purposely left undefined here) are betrayed in the uniting, there is nothing accomplished.

2006-09-19T23:30:00.000-04:00

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Manifest Destiny

I can see how the concept of manifest destiny is connected with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Mankind's colonization of the moon in the novel can be seen as an extension of the American idea of manifest destiny. In the novel the entire world is populated so that just leaves the moon as the only great unexplored and uncolonized area. In this way it relates to the American West of the 1840s. However, there is one glaring difference between the moon and the American West. The moon in the novel is unowned by anyone, it is simply empty territory there for the taking. Although many Americans may of thought of the West in this way back in the 1840s, the reality was that that territory belonged to other nations and that it had to be purchased or taken by force. The other big difference of course is the manner by which people settled the West versus the way they settled the moon. The west was settled by choice. The people who moved out there chose to do so. No one forced them to go, instead they wanted to make a new start for themselves. Those who settled the moon in the novel took a completely different path to settlement. They were forced to move to the moon, and had absolutely no choice in the matter. In my mind this is a major distinction.

Yet in the end I still feel that the moon is an apt parrallel to the spirit of manifest destiny. In fact I think it still fits even in our own time. Even during the Cold War the moon represented the great unknown and there was the sense that it was America's destiny to make it to the there. (Sure the Cold War rivalry with the Soviets played a large role in our desire to go to the moon as well but I still think my point is valid) Thus, I can see how the two book we had to read for this theme relate and how the theme of Space as the Final Frontier ties in with the idea of Manifest Destiny.

2006-09-18T16:57:00.000-04:00

Has Manifest Destiny Disappeared?

No. I do not believe that Manifest Destiny has disappeared from the United States, it has just changed. Many people believe that America is still some beacon on a hill as the founders originally thought. While America may have been a unique and daring form of governement 200+ years ago, it no longer is. We no longer set an example for what other countries can do, because so many other countries have followed suit. We no longer run at the lead of a pack, but have slipped more towards the center.
However, this slippage has not stopped America from taking it upon herself to "liberate" the rest of the world. As show in Manifest Destiny, America is not always right, does not always act selflessly, and her people are perhaps to easily convinced in their own righteousness to be given free reign in the less fortunate countries of the world.
I do not agree with cultural relativism at any costs, as this could condone abhorent practices such as genital mutilation, but at the same time, I also do not beleive that what works well in one country will work well in all countries. Just because America has produced the largest economy in the world does not mean that we are the best, brightest, or most right country or that others should model themselves after us.

2006-09-17T23:42:00.000-04:00

Manipulation, Libertarianism and Leadership

Please note that this post was supposed to be published on the 17th of September, and appears only now due to the miscreant tendancies of the "Save Draft" button being so close to the "Publish" button.

There are a great many things I would like to argue, but in the interest of my time and your own patience, I will limit myself to the concepts of control and Libertarianism, which I threw out at the end of class last thursday.

I don't belief in objective arguments, just fair ones, so I preface this blog with the statement that while I respect the spirit of libertarianism, and think it's a very silly ideology for a thinking adult to actually subscribe to. It is agreed that under a libertarian system, there's no government, right? Nothing to restrict freedom of association? So, would it be against the libertarian ideal for several men to get together, pick a name for their grouping (Super Friends, or Justice League, if you want to be silly) and hire a standing army and someone to keep track of natural monopoly goods like water and electricity? If one works from the basic (and I think, safe) assumption that man's intelligence arose came before government (pithy comments aside), then it follows that we have government because being intelligent led man to create it. In both Anarres and Luna, furthermore, violence and the threat of seem to serve as the popular methods of controlling what in a legal society would be called "crime." There is no judge, jury, or process: the supposed victim (or any bystander) simply decides what a proper punishment would be and metes it out, if he is strong enough (I suppose that it is assumed that no one will ever take greater offense than the situation really warrants as an excuse to do violence). This, more than anything, makes libertarian ideology seem ridiculous. Given a group of human beings who have no particular reason not to use violence as a means to an end and no restriction on their freedom of association, does the libertarian seem to assume that they will go about their business individually and not join their strength to one another in factions for mutual protection and aid? Does he claim, then, that "governance" is the only sin? I think he does. This sort of confusion I have usually found characteristic of radical utopians and the kinder variety of conservative.

In our immediate discussion, this precise imprecision is what bothers me about claims of the supposed hypocracy of Prof, Mike and the rest. If one is free to do as one pleases, even lie and manipulate (remember, it's up to the natural, invisible hand of society to decide what is right and wrong, and the serve justice; we mere humans cannot), what is the wrong in manipulating large groups of people, and calling it government? Where lies the line between leading the willing and courting the mob? With no laws to break and only their own moral compasses to judge, who can say that Prof does anything un-libertarian? His own admission to hypocracy when Mannie confronts him does not reveal a betrayal of anything but the Prof's own desires of a society without manipulation entirely. To touch upon the idea of rational anarchism: pooh pooh. We are all by our own free will rational anarchists; of course one will obey rules until one chooses not to. The self-realization that brings understanding of this nature is at best worth a conversation with an old friend, a "My, isn't that something?" moment. The Prof's self important and condescending explainations and airs amount to little more than intellectual masturbation. Considering libertariansim as a useful system is as fruitful as considering this rational arachism as a useful ethical base; they are deep and profound ideas that have little practical use. Everyone is free, and so am I. Now what do I do next, Bog?

2006-09-17T22:49:00.000-04:00

Did the Revolution Succeed?

Near the end of class on Thursday we begin to delve into the topic of whether the Lunar Revolution was successful or not. It is this question that I wish to address here as I feel we did not adequately cover this issue in class. So, did the Lunar Revolution succeed? I must answer with a resounding da, tovarishchi, da. I believe that the revolution was a complete success. Yet to answer this question you have to define what the goals of the revolution were. After all if you dont know what the revolution was trying to accomplish then it is impossible to judge whether or not it was successful. I believe that the revolution had very modest aims. It was strictly about the toppling of the Lunar Authority and the saving of Luna from the dire future that Mike predicted for it if nothing changed. I do not believe there was anything more to it than that. I do not think that there was any real plan for Luna post-revolution. In fact I got the impression that Mannie, Wyoh, and the Prof were rather taken aback when they had actually managed to take over Luna. They did not seem to have much in the way of a plan, it was if they were making it up as they went along. Sure the Professor had his own ideas about how a government should run and what it should look like, but I do not believe that those ideas really shaped the goals of the Revolution. Therefore there were two goals of the Revolution: Independence for Luna and the prevention of the disasterous famine that Mike predicted to occur in the near future. Both of these goals were eventually accomplished. Luna did gain its independence and although we do not get much of a picture of Luna after the war with Terra, it is clear that no terrible famine occured and that the social order of Luna did not break down. Thus, the Lunar Revolution was a remarkable success.

2006-09-17T12:33:00.000-04:00

Reflection on class 9/14/06

I disagree with SymbolSix in that directly after the revolution the interim government that had a congress that "voted" on issues and eventually "voted" Mann for leader was in reality entirely controlled by the professor, Mike, and in some ways by Mann and Wyoh. This government was more focused on the needs of the Lunies but was really as controlling as the Authority in that the government was censoring the news, pretending that the people had a say in the government, and when the war eventually occurred the "planet's decision" to throw rocks at the earth was entirely made by Mann. However, after the revolution and war the people who wanted to be leaders and upper level bureaucrats overthrew Mann and the government that the professor and Mike had created and chose their own way to control Luna.

In the end those who wanted to be in control were, and those who did not want control were either content where they were or decided to begin looking for new places to go. This is where the importance of the comparison between the clip of "Firefly" that we watched in class and Mann's decision in the end of the novel to seek out asteroids comes into play. Mann participated in the revolution because he enjoyed the process, not because he was very interested in the end result of the revolution. Like the characters in "Firefly" Mann was seeking a new life, one that would be even different from the "new life" that would come with the "new government". Our class on Thursday really made me consider what Heinlein might trying to convey about people. To me, it seems as if he is trying to say that no matter what happens people will always assume the roles that suit them the best. For example, the professor's role in society was to start trouble or revolutions wherever he was. Mann's role in society was to seek whatever new action there was (he became a part of the revolution because it was fun, then afterwards he wanted to seek out new adventures on asteroids). Other Lunies were workers and would always be satisfied being workers no matter who was in power. Other Lunies wanted power and wanted to be bureaucrats, thus in the end they took over control of the government (without any regard to the new types of government that the professor had considered).

2006-09-17T12:06:00.000-04:00

A large problem I had with Moon is the apocalyptic end occurrences of the war for revolution. Given the time in which this was written, I cannot help be see Moon as anything but a comment on Cold War relations, albeit without a clearly defined clash of the superpowers. Instead, I view the Moon as a satellite state, be it of America or the Soviet Union. The country wishes to break away and is prevented from doing so. In the end war breaks out and the mother country is temporarily ousted. However, as we saw in the book, the mother country returns, and the satellite state lashes back out with what it has, weapons of mass destruction. Again, we return to the image of Mannie with his morally unambiguous choice or lobbing bombs at the Earth. Given the climate of the 1960's, it strikes me as rather unnerving that the author wrote a scenario in which raining down wide scale destruction becomes a morally unambiguous action. The end of this book reminds me greatly of the movie Crimson Tide. Now imagine if Crimson Tide came out only a few years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is what the author is presenting to us all. I find the warning call on the possibility of one man with the world hanging on the end of his finger, poised to see if he pushes the button.

2006-09-14T00:15:00.000-04:00

Refraint

I must respectfully disagree with the sentiments expressed in the previous posts, and point out that the two actors most attacked for hypocracy in bringing revolution to Luna, Mike and the Prof, were in fact not in any way responsible for bringing excess government to the Moon.

Mike, the innocent computer, certainly has no ulterior motive from start to finish in plotting and executing revolution. Perhaps that is not true; say rather that Mike's ulterior motive is simple friendship. Mike, while realizing the importance to his friends of the Revolution and it's success, cannot help requesting several times throughout the novel that Mannie review his list of jokes. As his first friend notes several times, Mike's interest in the Revolution is largely sporting, and derived entirely from the fact that his only friends are so devoted to it. This can hardly be called the machinations of a depraved and power hungry computer.

For Prof, on the other hand, it is somewhat more subtle, but just as clear, to explain the way in which he is distinctly not involved in creating unnecessary government on Luna. Remember, first, that Prof is an intellectual and a theorist in background; he has given no mean thought to his stance as a rational anarchist and has also spent time contemplating the best methods of performing revolution, but the only revolution he has previously participated in turned sour and was, ultimately, the cause of his transportation to Luna. If Prof is meticulous in his plotting and fanatical in his involvement in running the Revolution and its successor government, it is because he is an artist caught up by his muse. In particular response to the allegation that "When that oppressive regeme was pulled down, the revolution merely set another up in its place" I would point out the nature of Prof's participation and influence in Congress. His principal monologoue on the role of government comes on page 302, where he declares "Comrades, if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your government should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome." "Accentuate the negative!" Cries the man Jeesh has unjustly said turned traitor to his principles. What kind of government could possibly be less an authoritarian body than that which Prof describes?

As to the stratefied natures of Luna's leadership during and shortly after the Revolution, I think Jeesh merely confuses authoritarian government with strong leadership. At no point do any of the principals take actions wildly inconsistent with the ideals of libertarian freedom. The Battle in Corridors is a screaming mess; Finn is unable even to rally his riflemen, much less command them. More tellingly, Prof forbids the use of force to coerce the evacuation of Tycho Under, accepting the grim consequences of a population protected from cold vacuum only by afew meters of rock liable to be hit by fusion weapons. Certainly, Prof and Mike (and to a lesser extent, Mannie and even Wyoh) exert tremendous influence over the stories, (the only characters with very much agency at all) but they do so through their charisma, recognized abilities and wisdom.

2006-09-13T12:28:00.000-04:00

I agree with both Jeesh and GuardianofDis that Heinlein seems to be making quite a statement by having Mike, a machine, be responsible for the revolution's success but actually have Mannie be responsible for the success of the attack on Terra. While reading the novel I was continually afraid that either Mike would be destroyed and the revolution would not be a success or that Mike might try to use his power and control for his own means instead (at one point I was afraid that the novel end with machienes controlling Luna and eventually even Terra). Heinlein seemed to be exploring the idea that technology can really be a powerful and amazing tool, but that in the end people will end up making their own decisions based on emotion (ego, pride, greed, etc) rather than pure facts. Even though Mike was able to pretend that he had the emotional capacity of a human, he still made his most important decisions based on facts and not emotions. The last page of the novel states, "Prof got fascinated by possibilities for shaping future that lay in a big, smart computer-and lost track of things closer home." Mike allowed the Professor to imagine and begin to plan the best type of government with the best organization; yet, once the war was over the emotions and will of the people in the congress prevailed and they formed a government that had little or no root in the Professor and Mike's plans. Maybe in a way Heinlein is warning us of the potential that computers/machienes have but reminding us that machienes can never replace the emotional potential of humans.

I also want to consider what Heinlein was trying to tell his readers about revolutions. The Authority originally had control over Luna, then during the revolution Luna was controlled predominantly by Mike and the Professor, and then finally after the war with the earth the control of Luna was finally in the hands of the congress. Exactly who had control of Luna changed but a similar type of control was in place all along. The people of Luna will never really have their own say in political affairs, because even after the revolution only a few people are controlling most of the decisions.

2006-09-12T22:15:00.000-04:00

I once again find myself agreeing with Jeesh in one of his latest posts. Specifically I am reffering to the fact that at the very end of the novel Mannie is all alone. He is the one who has to make the critical decision at the decisive moment in the war with Terra. This is a fact that Jeesh singles out as significant. I agree that it is significant although for a different reason. Jeesh finds it important because it leaves one man acting as essentially the entire government. I, on the other hand, believe that is important, because Mike is not there. This is a glaring exception to the rest of the novel where Mike had always been there to help those working for a free Luna. He had always been there to do all manner of essential tasks for the organization. In fact he was integral to the success of the revolution and the stability of the government after the revolution. Yet at that final moment when everything was on the line, where the very fate of Luna and the Lunar government hung in the balance, Mike was not there. It instead was up to Mannie and Mannie alone to make the big decisions. I think this says something about the relation between man and machine. It seems to me that the author is saying that in the end we have to rely on ourselves. We cant always rely on machines or even other people (after all the professor was also unavailable and Mannie had also relied on him heavily throughout the novel). In a way this fits with the motto of TANSSAAFL. After all, if you dont ever do things for yourself it is as if you are getting your lunch for free, but as the novel makes plain that always costs you in the end. And in this case it seems to me that the cost is being forced to make an incredibly difficult decision. Mannie literally holds millions perhaps billions of lives in his hands at the very end of the novel. That is certainly not an enviable postion to be in, knowing that if you screw up millions will die.

My other two points are rather frivilous but I find them interesting. First off I thought it was very interesting that this novel had a computer that could think for itself, yet didnt try to enslave humanity or do anything horrible. It has always been my experience with science fiction that computers that can think for themselves are bad bad news. This was a pleasent exception. Also I really enjoyed the fact that the author worked Russian phrases into the everyday language of the people of Luna. I thought that was very cool, as I am currently studying Russian and have a rather large interest in all things Russian.

2006-09-10T23:10:00.000-04:00

Jeesh in one of his most recent posts (http://envisioningfall2006.blogspot.com/2006/09/reflective-post-class-9706-during.html) raises a very important point that was to a large extent neglected in our class discussion. I am reffering to the fact that Urras is not a unified society. We talked about the whether or not Urras is a utopia, yet Urras is actually composed of three distinct societies. Really when we talk of Urras we should specify A-Io, as that is the only nation that we got a good look at. It would be a mistake to project the attributes of A-Io onto Thu or on Benbili. They are all very different societies.

Another issue that was raised in class was the idea of a utopia/dystopia continuium with the Hainish being all the way at utopia, the Terrans being all the way at dystopia, Anarres being closer to the utopia end, and Urras being closer to the dystopia end. I am not so sure that I accept this idea. First of all, we know too little about the Hainish to place them anywhere on such a continium. Also, somehthing about placing the Terrans all the way at dystopia doesnt sound right. Yes, their society sounds horrible and it is the ultimate in centralization, but it still doesnt seem to fit in my mind. It is as if centralization from absolute neccesity doesnt really count. This issue was also raised in class, and it does seem to have a certain logic in it. Yet on the other hand the dystopian society in V for Vendetta (the graphic novel) was set up in a post apocalytic society somewhat similiar to what we are told exists on Terra. So perhaps I will concede this point and say that Terra is a dyspotia. However, I am very hesistant to say that either Urras or Anarres is closer to being a utopia than the other. I think that both have positive attributes and negative attributes, and that it is too difficult to determine which is closer to utopia. I think that any answer would be too subjective.

A final point I wish to address was something brought up in another one of my classes, where we discussed Marxism. According to our professor Marxism was originally supposed to be implemented in societies that were already highly developed. That way there would be enough resources to go around. However, those societies dont have many revolutions. Rather it is the underdeveloped nations that suffer from revolutions and that is where problems arise. It seems to me that this is applicable to the situation on Anarres. After all they have very few resources and barely enough to go around. When the drought came their society very nearly broke down completely. It seems as if there philosophy (like Marxism) was better suited for a more resource rich world such as Urras than the barren Anarres. I thought this was a very interesting connection.

2006-09-10T22:11:00.000-04:00

The moral of the class discussion of Thursday past seems to have been that one cannot control for humans in large groups. The main confusion on the actual viability of a anarchist-socialist experiment like Anarres came from the fact that no one was able to quite agree on how willing individuals would be to do work and contribute to society without any sort of real outside impetus (unless one counts the scorn of others, which Shevek ultimately rejects as unanarchistic). After all, is it even possible to intelligently assert that the possession instinct is not just that, and too deeply part of the human psyche to be socialized away, however young an age the education begins at? Even Le Guin had Shevek's earliest words and actions be of territory and protective violence, remember.

On the other hand, what is the point of science fiction, if not to explore the ways human beings might react to situations that are culturally unfamiliar? Certainly, if one can accept the basic premise that a system such as that on Anarres could get off the ground and set up, the rest of the novel becomes a very interesting study on how that system might break down. Both the shirking nuchnibi and the overbearing Sabul and his cronies are clear examples of what happens when the anarchist-socialist education/indoctrination breaks down and individuals begin to act (if not consciously think) in terms of their own best interests. The one group simply stops working and leeches off the efforts of more industrious/fanatical than themselves, while the other becomes so obsessed with their society that they seek means to control that which they were raised to believe was precious and sacred for the purpose of protecting it. My only complaint, in fact, still lies back at the beginning with the question of whether such a society would ever get off the ground in the first place. It is perhaps indicative of my own lack of imagination, but is it really possible that a society of two million (Shevek at one point notes that the population of the capital of A-Io at 500,000 is roughly a quarter that of Anarres') could hope to sustain itself for any meaningful time on the goodwill of its members?

2006-09-09T19:11:00.000-04:00

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

What is the Nature of givernment in a crisis.

What I am interested in is the response of Mannie during the war with Terra. The Luna governement shuts down all pretenses of popular rule and institutes authoritarian practices, as shown with the snubbing of valid concerns. In the end, the government becomes Mannie, as it is Mannie and Mannie alone who decides "when the missiles fly". The pressure on Mannie is immense in the end of the book, but so is the power he weilds. Were Mannie a different sort of person, he could have wreaked irrepairable damage to Terra and to Luna, because as was said in the book, if Terra took large scale casualties, they would completely destroy Luna.
Mannie was certainly not a supporter of populist government, as shown by his remarks about "yammerheads" and his desire to rig parlimentary procedure to what he saw as fit. Mannie is hardly a representative of the people.
That events turn out fairly well does not excuse the fact that with all communications line snapped, Mannie took the reigns of a government and ran it as he wished it, attacking as he wished and letting up the barrage when he saw fit.
Governement is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled, and a break of this trust is ground for rebelion. This sentiment was the reason which the revolution against the Warden was created. While the grain prices and ecological situation was a large impetus to the common man, the problems facing the Luna people stemmed from an unresponsive governing body that did not take their wellfare into account or accept any accountablity by the people the Warden governed.
When that oppressive regeme was pulled down, the revolution merely set another up in its place. The revolution betrayed its principles of self governement, or of no governement, because of a distrust of the common man, the rabble the leading 4 (Mike, Mannie, Wyoh, the Professor) did not trust to govern responsibly.

2006-09-09T17:42:00.000-04:00

Reflective Post Class 9/7/06

During class, a major discussion topic was what constituted a utopia. A large problem was the difficulties in separating a physical utopia and a political utopia. Urras possessed a physical utopia, a Garden of Eden, whereas Arrenas is a wasteland. Urras possessed a capitalist system carried to extremes, with no social consciousness extending beyond that displayed in ancient Rome, where the peasants where appeased with the spectacle of the Colluseum. Arrenas touted a divorcement from rule with freedom, true freedom, available to all.
However, neither Urras nor Arrenas is one distinct society. Capitalistic Urras was in fact Capitalistic IO-A, with different nations exposing different belief structures, but it socialistic Thu, or the war torn areas where proxy wars between IO-A and Thu were fought. Arrenas, somewhat united by a common heritage, was still comprised of "principalities" ruled over by the individual communities and the local syndicates, few of which possessed a worldly reach.
The only view we have of truly united words is the brief glimpse we are given of the Hainish and the Terrans. The Terrans possessed neither desirable physical or political situations, while the Hainish are even more mysterious, acting as a united society as far as we can tell, a somewhat benevolent, stand-offish people.
Urras and Arrenas float in between the extremes of utopia and distopia presented by the Hainish and the Terrans. Both Urras and Arrenas posses redeeming qualities, while at the same time have distasteful aspects. They are caught in the middle of the utopia/distopia continuum with indications of progression to both sides apparent in both worlds.