A further comment about David Lynch's film Mulholland Drive, continued from our discussion in the thread "what fantasy or sci-fi writers do you have trouble connecting with?":

I think the dividing line in Mulholland Drive is the appearance of the magic blue box. It changes the gears. And I am convinced that element was directly inspired from a story called "Top To Bottom", written by Jack Butterworth and illustrated by Richard Corben, which first appeared in the Warren publishing magazine Vampirella in 1974. It makes the film into a spiritual story, or "ghost story", in which their souls move between parallel existences. When first opening and looking into the magic box, a sort of portal, her consciousness is sucked into the parallel existence.


C. A. Smith's writings are very sensitive to parallel existences of the soul. So are Lovecraft's. A. Merritt also did it in The Ship of Ishtar. Several writers are, W. H. Hodgson for instance. Reincarnations (or parallel existences) usually happen in time sequence, the events separated through history. But may also spiritually coexist within the same timeline, as in Mulholland Drive.

Quote:

Dale Nelson said:
I've been delving into 17th-century history and literature for several years now (in my opinion a much more interesting century than Lovecraft's beloved 18th century).

The 17th century was bombastic baroque, with mad witch-hunts, had much war. The 18th century was the beginning of enlightenment, cultural refinement, civilized behavior (laying down most weapons) - perhaps therefore also the initiation of decadence (by suddenly becoming vulnerable to destructive forces, the bankers), which really took off in the 19th century, and has led to cultural madness by the end of the 20th century and escalating in the 21th century.

In my view, the fatal flaw in Enlightenment thinking is the mistaken assumption that people are rational, well-informed beings who tend to act in their own best interest. We are not. We are driven by our emotions and manage to screw things up massively again and again, both in our personal lives and as a species. Moreover, giving in to your prejudices is both easier and usually more fun than getting educated and thinking critically, which is hard.

Even centuries later, the notion of rational, informed beings acting in their own best interest is still the underpinning of many if not most macroeconomic and sociological theorising, which is one of the reasons macroeconomics and sociology are such bullshit, demonstrably incapable of improving either the economy or society.

The fact that most people think of themselves as rational (not to mention smarter than average) proves to me that we are the opposite. To paraphrase Decartes: common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, because nobody ever complains about not having enough of it.

The English philosopher John Gray has written powerfully about the failure of the Enlightenment. I especially recommend his book Straw Dogs (2002).

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my view, the fatal flaw in Enlightenment
> thinking is the mistaken assumption that people
> are rational, well-informed beings who tend to act
> in their own best interest. We are not. We are
> driven by our emotions and manage to screw things
> up massively again and again, both in our personal
> lives and as a species. Moreover, giving in to
> your prejudices is both easier and usually more
> fun than getting educated and thinking critically,
> which is hard.
>

This is also the reason why democracy really doesn't work. People need a firm and wise leader, that genuinely cares for the people and society. The problem is that such a leader is hard to come by. Power also often tends to corrupt, eventually leading to a people's freedom revolution, resulting in chaos - everything having to start all over again.

I don't think there exists a perfect political society arrangement for humans, not in our present state of evolution. Instead it tends to switch back and forth between different imperfect forms, replacing each other over time in cycles. But it is not quite as clean and simple as that either, for several levels of influence weave into these cycles, manipulating people. Life remains a struggle, both individually and collectively, it's as simple as that.

If I could decide upon a society form, it would be "knowledge-based democracy", in which citizens must first prove they have a general understanding of the mechanisms of society (including basics of biology, ecology, geology, physics, infrastructure, economy, sociology, psychology, ethnology, ethics) through examination tests, before being allowed to vote. These examination tests should be based on current accepted science, and be built upon, and consequently adjusted over time, as science and society gradually evolves. The weight of the vote (by points) should relate to the individual's range of knowledge. I believe such a society will have the most stable political form, and can gradually evolve towards ever more refinement, both scientifically and socially. Individual institutions, such as hospitals, should be more independently controlled by their own expertise hierarchy, ultimately by the professors, than by democratically elected politicians' uninitiated decisions. People who lack understanding of society, should obviously not be allowed to vote, for the responsibility of being given the privilege of influencing society is far to great to permit arbitrary voting. (Of course, there is always the risk of current scientific knowledge being wrecked by corrupted influence, which we can see clearly today. But I think the above system is still the best available to overcome such corruption.)

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In my view, the fatal flaw in Enlightenment
> > thinking is the mistaken assumption that people
> > are rational, well-informed beings who tend to
> act
> > in their own best interest. We are not. We are
> > driven by our emotions and manage to screw
> things
> > up massively again and again, both in our
> personal
> > lives and as a species. Moreover, giving in to
> > your prejudices is both easier and usually more
> > fun than getting educated and thinking
> critically,
> > which is hard.
> >

Interesting ideas. My comments interleaved.

>
> This is also the reason why democracy really
> doesn't work. People need a firm and wise leader,
> that genuinely cares for the people and society.
> The problem is that such a leader is hard to come
> by. Power also often tends to corrupt, eventually
> leading to a people's freedom revolution,
> resulting in chaos - everything having to start
> all over again.

There are huge flaws in a democratic system that extends the voting franchise too broadly, of this I have no doubt.

>
> I don't think there exists a perfect political
> society arrangement for humans, not in our present
> state of evolution. Instead it tends to switch
> back and forth between different imperfect forms,
> replacing each other over time in cycles. But it
> is not quite as clean and simple as that either,
> for several levels of influence weave into these
> cycles, manipulating people. Life remains a
> struggle, both individually and collectively, it's
> as simple as that.

I agree with this in essence. Life *does* remain a struggle, but the good news is that struggle is what humanity has evolved to accommodate, and one of the odd consequences is that each individual, if not occupied to some degree if not by struggle, at least productive problem solving, becomes maladjusted socially.

It's as if some degree of problem solving activity is essential to the mental well-being of the human individual in much the same way that physical exercise is still necessary for physical well being.

In the absence of either, a sort of malaise sets in. Physically, the person grows flabby and sluggish; mentally, in absence of sufficient metal activity aimed at improving one's lot, a tendency to "think bad thoughts" sets in. One becomes subject to emotional and intellectual manipulation, and very easily dissatisfied, when, if this same disenchanted, disaffiliated individual were to turn his/her attention to an attempt at self-improvement (and by this I mean anything that the individual values that is also within the agreed upon social strictures of the society in which they live) they'd feel at least somewhat empowered, and hence fulfilled, in a very basic way.

So if each individual can achieve at least this, in the aggregate the society will also be improved and more "healthy".

But as you say, this sounds a lot like work, and a parallel evolutionary strategy for each animate organism is conservation of energy. So that except as driven by need, organisms tend to exhibit lassitude, which is at odds with the sort of poking and prodding I counsel.

In the animal world of fairly limited abstract thought and communication this is OK because necessity for activity is always recognizable and is never confused with manipulation, as it is in humanity. This species' ironic flaw is that its intellect allows the *perception* of reality to be manipulated by other individuals, thus planting of doubt and mistrust to a degree that's often unwarranted. This undercuts the natural motivation to recognize reality and become involved in survival activity.

So you get vast swathes of the populace, in a state of natural lassitude, conserving energy as is properly dictated by nature, and when confronted with the reality of needing to act, physically or mentally, refusing to do so because they've been convinced by demagogs that to do so is not in their best interests, but is in fact in the best interests of others.

Hell of a note, isn't it?

>
> If I could decide upon a society form, it would be
> "knowledge-based democracy", in which citizens
> must first prove they have a general understanding
> of the mechanisms of society (including basics of
> biology, ecology, geology, physics,
> infrastructure, economy, sociology, psychology,
> ethnology, ethics) through examination tests,
> before being allowed to vote. These examination
> tests should be based on current accepted science,
> and be built upon, and consequently adjusted over
> time, as science and society gradually evolves.
> The weight of the vote (by points) should relate
> to the individual's range of knowledge. I believe
> such a society will have the most stable political
> form, and can gradually evolve towards ever more
> refinement, both scientifically and socially.
> Individual institutions, such as hospitals, should
> be more independently controlled by their own
> expertise hierarchy, ultimately by the professors,
> than by democratically elected politicians'
> uninitiated decisions. People who lack
> understanding of society, should obviously not be
> allowed to vote, for the responsibility of being
> given the privilege of influencing society is far
> to great to permit arbitrary voting. (Of course,
> there is always the risk of current scientific
> knowledge being wrecked by corrupted influence,
> which we can see clearly today. But I think the
> above system is still the best available to
> overcome such corruption.)

These ideas have merit, and of course they tend to reduce the voting franchise, so they have zero chance of being adopted in this society, within out lifetimes, barring a tremendous social upheaval.

It's difficult to see how an organized society can allow members to vote for a benefit for themselves, paid out of a pool of funds that they, themselves, do not contribute to. I mean, barring some degree of self-restraint--which is short supply today--they'll tend to do it every time.

If/when the pool of voters who do not themselves contribute to the public fund in any substantial way outnumbers the pool of voters who do so contribute, the system is at that point on a greased track to insolvency.

This would come about if the unquestioned admission to the voting franchise is simultaneously accompanied by a reduction in the requirement to contribute.

Sound at all familiar?

Have a good day!

:^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very wise words there, Sawfish!

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very wise words there, Sawfish!


Hah! You flatter me, K! ;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, a most extraordinary post, with several lucidly put and well arranged important points, that is an inspiration for me and, I hope, others!

Knygatin Wrote:
-----------------
> I don't think there exists a perfect political
> society arrangement for humans

I agree with C. S. Lewis: I believe in democracy because I believe in the Fall of Man. That is, rather than having an Enlightenment view of mankind, that everyone deserves to be able to vote, I am grateful for democracy because it disperses power rather than readily concentrating it in the hands of one or a few. I much appreciate the American checks and balances and wish that system were in practice more than it seems to be these days.

I don't approve of the idea of a test for voters such as was advocated here just now. Who would write the test? Who would set the threshold for passing or not passing? How would you prevent some from being given the answers? And so on. I would, though, accept the idea of a minimal test for participation in national elections relating to basics of American civics, perhaps along the lines of what people seeking legal naturalization -- there are many such -- have to pass. I would also be interested in seeing a more detailed civics test being an annual requirement for all members of Congress to have to take, under public scrutiny and with the result determining eligibility to participate in Congress's business. Retakes till passing would be permissible, but names of those who had to take the test more than once should be released on government websites (since I would not count on news media to report this evenhandedly).

All I want is the trains to run on time...

...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a different thread, Knygatin asked about a 1980s issue of Architectural Digest.

I don't suppose anyone can help with this, but --

I've wanted to track down an advertisement that I saw probably in the 1970s, maybe late 1960s. I had thought it was in one of my grandparents' issues of National Geographic, but when I leafed through a bunch of those issues at the university library I didn't find it. Anyway, I don't remember what the product was -- it feels like a luxury wristwatch but it could have been something else. The thing is that, as I seem to remember, the background was the face of Botticelli's Venus.

Well, it seems to me that this ad was one of my first experiences of the attraction, in art, of beauty. And I would be interested in tracking it down if I could. Does anyone have any idea of what I'm referring to?

i started reading best sf: 1968 (1969) edited by harry harrison and brian l. aldiss

the last movie i saw was the trial (1962) directed by orson welles.

right now, i'm listening to microtronics volume 01 (2003) by broadcast.

DrWho42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i started reading best sf: 1968 (1969) edited by
> harry harrison and brian l. aldiss
>
> the last movie i saw was the trial (1962) directed
> by orson welles.
>
> right now, i'm listening to microtronics volume 01
> (2003) by broadcast.


Hah!

Welles is a very interesting character, isn't he? The very description of a hugely talented wastrel.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

my preorder for weirdpunk books arrived:

things have gotten worse since we last spoke (2020) by eric larocca

for some reason i never got into lemon demon until today