At 12:17 PM 11/24/00 -0400, Gord wrote:
>Well, that is true of all literature [as you may recall from our discussion
>of literary criticism one time once]
Yeah, I think I remember that..... ;-)
>>First of all, I take strong exception to the idea that I wouldn't like
>>being confronted with "the other." I'd like to think that I have
>>consistently sought out "the other" in my life, from reading _National
>>Geographic_ to becoming an avid player in Model U.N. (where not only do I
>>have to learn about foreigners, but actually have to *become* a foreigner
>>as much as possible, be it a communist, a Muslim, or a Canadian.)
>
>Ooopsie, let me explain. I mean the non-evangelizable (or non-saveable)
>other. The other whom you cannot convince that abortion and any other
>sexuality than traditional mainstream heterosexuality is morally wrong, or
>that "traditional family values" are what needs to be returned to, or
>whatever.
Right, but how is sic-fi any different from interractions with Muslims, or
Hindus, or atheists? Is an alien really any more anathema to my beliefs
that one of these?
You yourself have explained that you essentially post about
>issues like abortion and politics in the hopes of changing our minds. You
>once said that you thought it'd be a good thing if the world converted to
>Catholicism en masse.
Right..... and I'll admit that one of the things I find most frustrating
about sci-fi is how often modern-day religions just drop off the face of
the Earth. I mean, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, yet in
so much sci-fi it seems to disappear in the next 500.
I guess that is why Babylon 5 is in part so appealing to me, as it does a
great job of favorable portrayal of Catholics.
>>Secondly, I don't have the first clue as to what you mean by "the
>>transience and inevitable erosion of what it seems is everything you value
>>as a conservative", so I will live that without comment.
>
>Well, I was specifying the conservativeness because the question was
>directed at you. It could as easily be directed at me, though pn different
>areas -- by valuing of certain academic/cultural traditions, and my
>utterly nostalgic tendencies. But as I was discussing with one friend
>tonight, thinking about the future -- not just the foreseeable future but
>the long term future beyond one's own lifetime -- eventually involves the
>erasure of one's existence from the world as anything but a kind of part of
>the sediment of history . . . and along with the erosion of you as an
>individual, so too is eroded almost everything that was certain and "true"
>in your own wordview.
True, but you forget that I am also a geologist.... sot his isn't exactly
news for me..... As we Economists say, "in the long run, we're all dead."
I separate, however, the spiritual world from the physical. There is a
particularly vivid passage in the Bible about this, which eludes me right
now, but basically affirms that this entire world will in fact pass away,
but that we will leave on in another world, after death, that is completely
unlike this one.
> For
>example, do you realize that it's very likely that most of the women and
>men in _Glory Season_ practice what we would essentially consider
>bisexuality? Breeding biannually is one thing, but when the sexes are
>essentially separated, I seriously doubt the majority of the humans on that
>planet simply do without most of the year -- social strictures or not, and
Well, I do recall one passage where sexual desire was basically genetically
engineered out of existence. Remember, during opposing cycles, the men
(or women) basically have to drag, drug, or bribe the other sex into bed.
>Now, why I specified "conservative" should now be clear. Does it bother
>you that the values of liberal-humanist society, of pluralist and
>existential (rather than essential, which is the belief in God and the Will
>of God and absolute morality defining Good and Evil for us, to which I
>suspect you ascribe) thought seem to be valorized in SF?
Well, until such a point in time in which we all coveret to Catholicsim ( a
day I can say with almost perfect certainty will never come), I remain a
great fan of liberal, secular, humanist society. I think all Christians
should know well that the only time our freedoms are protected is when we
protect the freedoms of those who are different from us.
>The only novel in which I've seen, for example,
>the Church depicted in a really positive light,
It is frustrating, as I noted above, but I tend to think of the Church as
just being ignored, rather than being mocked. I don't read sci-fi because
I consider it to be accurate predictions of the future, and I certainly
don't read it for insights into spirituality. So, while sci-fi does leave
me feeling spiritually empty, it has enough other redeeming virtues in
other areas of human civilization that makes it worth my while.
>So maybe this leads me to ask, what SF besides Brin (which, as I mentioned
>above, still has some potential to fit into the category I imagine would
>offend you) do you enjoy reading? And when you encounter a series of texts
>with which you disagree and by which you are offended, how do you react? Do
>you finish the novel?
Well, I actually have *read* very little sci-fi outside of Brin, partly
because university left me little time for free-lance reading, and I spent
much of my free time branching into non-fiction and classics as well
lately. I have read quite a bit of Asimov, however, as well as
Turtledove. I've read a bunch of sci-fi "classics", and enjoy Cold War
era "Armageddon" genre fiction. I read the magazine "Sci Fi Age" for a
few years, but that was short stories. I read a bunch of YA sci-fi in
high school.
I honestly can't recall being really truly offended more than once, and
that was simply because the author couldn't get through a sentence without
an expletive in it. I didn't finish it.
When I encounter morals, however, that are foreign to me - I just accept it
as cultural differences and go on. If the message is something I disagree
with (for example, the ST:TNG episode where Riker lands on a planet of
homosexuals, and attempts to pursue a taboo heterosexual relationship), I
take the message, try to understand it, and if I still disagree, well at
least I have engaged my mind.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
