QUOTE LUDDE:
"Quote:
"Yes. But I've had the feelings simply leafing thru an illustrated book on astronomy. Le silence éternel de ces espaces infinis m'effraie."

Yes, books help to give an added sense. However, my own experience is that the real thing will give a much deeper dimension. It's like the difference between looking at plant pictures in a book, and actually strolling around in a parkland landscape.

At first the stars will look like small dots on a flat black surface. But as you continue, and identify what you see through the books, the objects will begin to crawl with life. And there will be a three-dimensional depth. The eyes will get keener, and capture details that were not noticed before. And there is a very subtle sense of energies travelling back and forth between object and viewer; a similar kind of connection that you can feel to a tree, or to any other object without apparent communication.

Just be sure to bundle up with clothes, and bring a thermos with something hot to drink.

Quote:
"risk leading to aloofness which might hurt social relating and professional job commitment."

And the problem with that is...? ;-) Perhaps you're being ironic. Anything that leads one to question the human aquarium, in general, and the social asylum, in particular, is all to the good, in my eyes, and, ultimately, is CAS's greatest legacy, as well. I think, too, of Sterling's magnificent lines:


Above, below, beyond, the eternal gulfs
Conserve the death that shall await all life.
The candle glimmers but an hour. The night
Looms in its ancient hunger. Would you know
The tragedy of human love and need?
Gaze on the stars, then on a brother's face!"


No, I am not being ironic. Staying in the human aquarium, with its limited perspective comforts and make-believe illusionary viewpoints and small opinions, is after all a protection from insanity and pain for us in the short and insignificant period that a human lifespan is.

Compare it to the symbolic picture of sitting snuggly inside your little cabin. Outside vicious winds, and vast cold space, press in on walls and roof. But you are not really aware of this. Instead you carefully guard your closed perspective; you sit by the warm fireplace, have your comfortable favorite chair, your other loved furniture instilled with memories and an extention of your own identity; the soft and pleasantly patterned carpet underneath your feet, pictures on the walls; you may have others of your own species (or other) at your side for social comfort; in the larder you find sweet edibles, that have grown out of your human home earth, to please your carnal taste organs; from your book shelf you can pick a favorite (and though it may deal with the pioneer curiosity for the Outside, it will still only be an interpretation, a product composed of the elements, harmonies, and carnal sense balances of our own kin. It will be nowhere near the real thing outside your cabin). You are home.

I agree that a certain measure of this imaginative questioning is healthy to get a perspective on ones sufferings. But if you want to stretch your interest for the Outside beyond the dillentantes casual curiosity, you had better be very strong and stable of mind. Otherwise you risk falling into the madness of the Abyss. You will have NO control there. And it will NOT be a pleasant experience.

If you go far enough, there is no human mind sufficiently evolved to handle it and feel at home in this larger perspective. Not even Smith's."

QUOTE KYBEREAN:
"Quote:
And it will NOT be a pleasant experience.

Leaving aside the subjective nature of what is "pleasant", you cannot possibly make this generalization for everyone.

Quote:
If you go far enough, there is no human mind sufficiently evolved to handle it and feel at home in this larger perspective. Not even Smith's.

Even if what you say is true, and that is debatable, that fact would still not fail to make such an aspiration worth the effort."


I am affraid you strongly overestimate the human species. We are animals, that share the attribute of "curiosity" with most other animals, notably obvious for example in dogs, fishes. Natural science studies over the last few hundred years have made us arrogant in belief of mankind's own selfimagined super brilliance. Some individuals are more intelligent than others too, but from a little larger perspective, just shortly removed away from mankind, these differences are only marginal. Furthermore, our bodies and minds have evolved on this particular Earth, and are 100% interacting and dependent on, and a small ingrained part of, the physical laws (exact gravity, light intensity, temperature) and precise chemical compositions of air, liquid, and solid materia. In any other environment we would collaps sooner or later. (Astronauts quickly break down both physically and mentally, unless they bring along conditions and things that remind them of Earth in their capsule.) We are wholly dependent. As Lovecraft would say, we are only flyspecks.

"The real objection to Darwinian theory is that man has not yet evolved from the ape."
-Clark Ashton Smith

A similar defence of my view you can read in the first paragraph of The Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft puts forth the idea that revelations coming through intellectual knowledge will lead to madness. I think it it will only come through actual contact.

Consider this text from a Jack Vance story. It deals with humans entering an alien spaceship coming from a world only slightly different from ours:

"Clambering down through the torn hull with his suit-light on, he found himself in a marvelous environment of shapes and colors which could only be characterized, if tritely, by the word "weird". Certain functional details resembled those of Earth ships, but with odd distortions and differences of proportion that were subtly jarring and disjunctive. "Naturally, and to be expected," Gench told himself. "We alter environment to the convenience of our needs: the length of our tread, the reach of our arms, the sensitivity of our retinas, many other considerations. And these other races, likewise . . . Fascinating . . . I suspect that a man, confined for any length of time in this strange ship, might well become seriously disturbed, if not deranged."

To me CAS is foremost a genius artist, who fully understood the multifarious parts and conditions of Earth, and was able to put them together into unique functioning creations. This ability is still a local thing, one of many of Nature's beautiful expressions. His cosmic side is that of the dreamer and romantic, more than making actual believable physical representations of the Outside. I admit that his cosmic writing can be uncanny, but his possible connection with other worlds is all on the spiritual and soul level.

So let us be happy with our human aquarium, enjoy what we have in our immediate surrounding, be content here; and also use our inborn curiosity to dream of other worlds, without having frustrated illusions about actually getting a chance to physically mingle in them.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 28 Nov 05 | 03:31PM by Ludde.

Here again is the newest text I wrote, to separate it from all the older quotes I pasted in above.

Kyberean wrote:
"Quote:
And it will NOT be a pleasant experience.

Leaving aside the subjective nature of what is "pleasant", you cannot possibly make this generalization for everyone.

Quote:
If you go far enough, there is no human mind sufficiently evolved to handle it and feel at home in this larger perspective. Not even Smith's.

Even if what you say is true, and that is debatable, that fact would still not fail to make such an aspiration worth the effort."


I am afraid you strongly overestimate the human species. We are animals, that share the attribute of "curiosity" with most other animals, notably obvious for example in dogs, fishes. Natural science studies over the last few hundred years have made us arrogant in belief of mankind's own selfimagined super brilliance. Some individuals are more intelligent than others too, but from a little larger perspective, just shortly removed away from mankind, these differences are only marginal. Furthermore, our bodies and minds have evolved on this particular Earth, and are 100% interacting and dependent on, and a small ingrained part of, the physical laws (exact gravity, light intensity, temperature) and precise chemical compositions of air, liquid, and solid materia. In any other environment we would collaps sooner or later. (Astronauts quickly break down both physically and mentally, unless they bring along conditions and things that remind them of Earth in their capsule.) We are wholly dependent. As Lovecraft would say, we are only flyspecks.

"The real objection to Darwinian theory is that man has not yet evolved from the ape."
-Clark Ashton Smith

A similar defence of my view you can read in the first paragraph of The Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft puts forth the idea that revelations coming through intellectual knowledge will lead to madness. I think it it will only come through actual contact.

Consider this text from a Jack Vance story. It deals with humans entering an alien spaceship coming from a world only slightly different from ours:

"Clambering down through the torn hull with his suit-light on, he found himself in a marvelous environment of shapes and colors which could only be characterized, if tritely, by the word "weird". Certain functional details resembled those of Earth ships, but with odd distortions and differences of proportion that were subtly jarring and disjunctive. "Naturally, and to be expected," Gench told himself. "We alter environment to the convenience of our needs: the length of our tread, the reach of our arms, the sensitivity of our retinas, many other considerations. And these other races, likewise . . . Fascinating . . . I suspect that a man, confined for any length of time in this strange ship, might well become seriously disturbed, if not deranged."

To me CAS is foremost a genius artist, who fully understood the multifarious parts and conditions of Earth, and was able to put them together into unique functioning creations. This ability is still a local thing, one of many of Nature's beautiful expressions. His cosmic side is that of the dreamer and romantic, more than making actual believable physical representations of the Outside. I admit that his cosmic writing can be uncanny, but his possible connection with other worlds is all on the spiritual and soul level.

So let us be happy with our human aquarium, enjoy what we have in our immediate surrounding, be content here; and also use our inborn curiosity to dream of other worlds, without having frustrated illusions about actually getting a chance to physically mingle in them.

For another, and for my taste more appropriate view of space itself, you might have a look at the opening portions of the journey to Mars (Malacandra) in Lewis' "Our of the Silent Planet". On a quite other note, if one is not familiar with these works, the dialogue between Ransom and Weston (deranged) in "Perelandra"(Venus) is very much philosopically on a par with the Grand Inquisitor scene in "Brothers Karamazov" -

Quote:

I am afraid you strongly overestimate the human species. We are animals [...]

Here is where we immediately part company. You believe in the concept of a human race, and use such inclusive pronouns as "we" and "us". I do not. I take the Nietzschean view that there are different types of life, and that these types of life are so diverse as to negate the idea of a unitary species, altogether. Of course, at the level of the purely physical, there are more similarities among the misnamed Homo sapiens than there are differences--at least, so far as we can detect. At the level of the mind and the spirit, however--and that is what is at issue here--there are vastly more differences than there are similarities. Pace the equally misnamed Enlightenment, which seems to be where this particular species of idiocy took firm root, the common term human is utterly inadequate to encompass these differences.

Neither do I overestimate the capacities of the so-called human race; rather the opposite. I believe that the majority of those who identify so strongly with the term human are unconscious automata, mere reactive creatures that are, without external direction, capable of very little. I also know, however, that there are exceptions among them, and that such general proclamations of "universal human weakness", although perhaps flattering to the particular weak person who, seeking solace and company, utters them, are utterly unfounded. History abounds with so many examples--albeit still rare ones, relative to the total population of Earth throughout its history--that there is no need to argue further.

Speaking of exceptions, I should add that I find both compelling and quite plausible Nietzsche's concept of the Uebermensch, or Superhuman. The Superhuman does not represent a full flowering of humanity, such that one would be justified in accusing Nietzsche of humanism. To the contrary: The Superhuman bears as much relation to humanity as humanity does to the ape. The Superhuman is alien, terrifying, and, if it should ever appear, it would likely prey upon, and perhaps even eliminate, humanity proper. As Nietzsche states, (I am quoting from memory here), "What is the ape to man? A laughingstock. What will man be to the Superhuman? A laughingstock". Granted, the Superhuman is merely a disquieting spectre lurking at the horizon of humanoid evolution, but it lurks there, nonetheless.

Quote:

that share the attribute of "curiosity" with most other animals, notably obvious for example in dogs, fishes. Natural science studies over the last few hundred years have made us arrogant in belief of mankind's own selfimagined super brilliance.

I think that what has actually happened is that most humans now practice what psychologists call "basking in reflected glory". They take credit for the acts of a comparatively small group of creative and powerful artists, scientists, warriors, scholars, and statesmen, and then grossly and incorrectly attribute these achievements to the race as a whole.

Quote:

Some individuals are more intelligent than others too, but from a little larger perspective, just shortly removed away from mankind, these differences are only marginal.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. The difference in intelligence and in innumerable other qualities, between, say, a Lovecraft or a Clark Ashton Smith and the average crack house inhabitant is far from "marginal".

Quote:

Furthermore, our bodies and minds have evolved on this particular Earth, and are 100% interacting and dependent on, and a small ingrained part of, the physical laws (exact gravity, light intensity, temperature) and precise chemical compositions of air, liquid, and solid materia. In any other environment we would collaps sooner or later.(Astronauts quickly break down both physically and mentally, unless they bring along conditions and things that remind them of Earth in their capsule.) We are wholly dependent. As Lovecraft would say, we are only flyspecks.

Here, you shift the debate in a completely different direction, albeit an interesting one. My initial comments were directed at your view that too much of a cosmic perspective and outlook would have socially disruptive consequences. I asked you to explain why, exactly, that is to be considered primarily a bad thing, and you never really replied. Now, however, you move the debate beyond a cosmic perspective to that of physical and psychological adaptation.

First, the argument that one should avoid considering space travel or colonization is flawed for precisely the reason you indicate, namely, that "we" have evolved. If life can evolve and adapt to changing conditions on Earth, then it likely can evolve and adapt to changes elsewhere. Of course, such possible futures shall involve great hardship and sacrifice, and likely lie millennia in advance of our age, but that is no reason to dismiss them entirely.

As for the question of psychological adaptation, I am not certain that what you say is or has been true of all astronauts. Some have even returned who were spiritually transformed by their experience "outside the human aquarium" in a way that they deem to be wholly positive. Also, although astronauts are very well trained for the physical rigors of their journeys, they are far less well trained for the psychological and spiritual rigors their voyages entail. If they were, or if we to send, say, Zen masters into space, then I suspect that we would not see the purely negative and disorienting results that you claim. In any case, without even the attempt, the contrarian generalizations you make are meaningless, to me.

Quote:

A similar defence of my view you can read in the first paragraph of The Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft puts forth the idea that revelations coming through intellectual knowledge will lead to madness. I think it it will only come through actual contact.

And yet, despite the risk, Lovecraft's tales abound with characters who feel that such a risk is worth taking, and it is plain that Lovecraft sees something noble in the attempt. That is also exactly the point of my second round of objections to your remarks.

Quote:

To me CAS is foremost a genius artist, who fully understood the multifarious parts and conditions of Earth, and was able to put them together into unique functioning creations. This ability is still a local thing, one of many of Nature's beautiful expressions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find this passage to be very unclear. It seems to me, though, that you are using the term nature in a very vague and conveniently all-encompassing fashion, much the way one can re-define such terms as matter to embrace even the most anomalous phenomena. Do you really consider, say, the phantasmagoria of the translation into the dimension of the Singing Flame, or Sterling's "Testimony of the Suns", to be "a local thing"?

Quote:

His cosmic side is that of the dreamer and romantic, more than making actual believable physical representations of the Outside. I admit that his cosmic writing can be uncanny, but his possible connection with other worlds is all on the spiritual and soul level.

What other "contact" was possible for him at the time, and why does that seem to invalidate, or weaken, his perceptions of the matter? It seems to me that, regardless of whether CAS painted clinically accurate portrayals of the outer cosmos, the feelings, thoughts, and perceptions that his spiritual and emotional contact with these realms made possible are no less valid for his having procured them through "visionary" or imaginative means. I also doubt that they would have greatly varied had he experienced the phenomenal reality of the stars.

Quote:

So let us be happy with our human aquarium, enjoy what we have in our immediate surrounding, be content here; and also use our inborn curiosity to dream of other worlds, without having frustrated illusions about actually getting a chance to physically mingle in them.

Few, if any, are under the illusion that such direct contact will occur in our lifetime, so it seems to me that you are jousting with a straw man, here. For the rest, the perspective you propose seems to me to be a recipe for evolutionary stagnation.

Although you and I are fated to agree to disagree, I suppose, I shall nevertheless repeat that, for me, anything that encourages the cosmic perspective, even while here on Earth, and however "flawed" or "human" it may remain, is all to the good. As Lovecraft has stated, however, and as your own reflections have demonstrated, such a perspective is, and shall always remain, rare, indeed. Therefore, I shouldn't worry too much that the cosmic perspective shall disrupt commerce, one's job, and one's ordinary social relations--in a word, all those truly important facets of life. ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 03:00PM by Kyberean.

Calonlan:

Quote:

For another, and for my taste more appropriate view of space itself [...]

"More appropriate" in what way? Never having read Lewis's adult science ficton/fantasy works, I am genuinely curious.

Space, in Lewis' books, is (contrary to his protagonists expectations) alive, pulsing with life - what that means comes withing the context of the tales themselves, and presumes a cosmic view no doubt quite at odds with Nietsche -- but then one shouldn't expect too much hopefulness from someone raised by maiden aunts (worse luck - German maiden aunts).

Forgive me if a little light-hearted about a matter others take quite seriously - I have just down-loaded a rather pricey gift to myself of the Oxford English Dictionary (found a great buy on Ebay) -
Note to Philippe -
I did not find Ebony and Crystal for sale on Ebay - my copy, a gift from Clark in 1958, will someday be available as will my other books he gave me, but only to someone prepared to value them as a possession to be kept as an heirloom - It is possible my son may want them, but I don't know that yet.

Kyberean wrote:

> detect. At the level of the mind and the spirit,
> however--and that is what is at issue here--there
> are vastly more differences than there are
> similarities.

This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I'm no egalitarian, but a great deal of philosophy is like religion: it's for flattering the ego or mental gymnastics, not for arriving at the truth.

> Pace the equally misnamed
> Enlightenment, which seems to be where this
> particular species of idiocy took firm root, the
> common term human is utterly inadequate to
> encompass these differences.

The term does the job it's intended for.

> Neither do I overestimate the capacities of the
> so-called human race; rather the opposite. I
> believe that the majority of those who identify so
> strongly with the term human are unconscious
> automata, mere reactive creatures that are,
> without external direction, capable of very
> little.

I don't think the average unconscious automaton (whatever "unconscious" means) identifies strongly with the term "human". These questions simply don't occur to them.

> I also know, however, that there are
> exceptions among them, and that such general
> proclamations of "universal human weakness",
> although perhaps flattering to the particular weak
> person who, seeking solace and company, utters
> them, are utterly unfounded.

Does Nietzsche ever appeal to women? This obsession with "strength" and "weakness" smacks of a male inferiority complex. We are all weak and transient in the face of the universe, as CAS recognized. Humans can only feel strong in relation to those creatures or things with little power, i.e. other humans, animals, certain aspects of the environment.

> Speaking of exceptions, I should add that I find
> both compelling and quite plausible Nietzsche's
> concept of the Uebermensch, or Superhuman. The
> Superhuman does not represent a full flowering of
> humanity, such that one would be justified in
> accusing Nietzsche of humanism.

Heaven forfend. H.G. Wells has a good line here in Food of the Gods:

Quote:

...it is easier to hate animate than inanimate things, animals more than plants, and one's fellow-men more completely than any animals.

But by hating or despising them, we demonstrate their power over us and our inability to escape our evolved psychology.

> To the contrary:
> The Superhuman bears as much relation to humanity
> as humanity does to the ape. The Superhuman is
> alien, terrifying, and, if it should ever appear,
> it would likely prey upon, and perhaps even
> eliminate, humanity proper.

Then it would be subhuman, not superhuman.

> As Nietzsche states,
> (I am quoting from memory here), "What is the ape
> to man? A laughingstock. What will man be to the
> Superhuman? A laughingstock".

Is that your attitude to apes? Why laugh at something for being what it naturally is? Laughter is very often the product of ignorance and secret fear.

> Granted, the
> Superhuman is merely a disquieting spectre lurking
> at the horizon of humanoid evolution, but it lurks
> there, nonetheless.

As a power fantasy.

> Quote:that share the attribute of "curiosity"
> with most other animals, notably obvious for
> example in dogs, fishes. Natural science studies
> over the last few hundred years have made us
> arrogant in belief of mankind's own selfimagined
> super brilliance.
>
> I think that what has actually happened is that
> most humans now practice what psychologists call
> "basking in reflected glory". They take credit for
> the acts of a comparatively small group of
> creative and powerful artists, scientists,
> warriors, scholars, and statesmen, and then
> grossly and incorrectly attribute these
> achievements to the race as a whole.

Flowers need roots and leaves, but again I think you're attributing thoughts and feelings to the average person that he or she simply doesn't have. Celebrities and power-units like sports teams are far more important to them than "great men".

> Quote:Some individuals are more intelligent than
> others too, but from a little larger perspective,
> just shortly removed away from mankind, these
> differences are only marginal.
>
> I could not possibly disagree with you more. The
> difference in intelligence and in innumerable
> other qualities, between, say, a Lovecraft or a
> Clark Ashton Smith and the average crack house
> inhabitant is far from "marginal".

All of them are the products of forces beyond their control, and no virtue attaches to HPL's and CAS's superiority, where they are in fact superior.

I can't see anything Nietzschean in CAS, but I can in REH, where I'd diagnose it as a reaction to being bullied as a child. CAS didn't fear his own weakness like that and didn't worship his own ego and self, because he had the Buddhist (or Humean) understanding that it didn't truly exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 06:34PM by Ghoti23.

Ghoti123:


Your grasp of Nietzsche leaves much to be desired (although you are hardly alone in this). Since you enjoy playing amateur psychoanalyst, you won't mind my observing that your sole aim in replying to my post seems to be to fill your own rather sad ego-need to try to score points and play the contrarian. When I saw your post, I hoped that you might actually have something other than superficial gainsaying to contribute. I also hoped that you had gotten over our past head-butting---I certainly have--but your refusal to find anything at all positive in my contribution, or to contribute anything positive or original of your own, demonstrates otherwise. Indeed, you appear to be incapable at this point of reacting to my posts here with anything other than Pavlovian negativity.

I consider it a shame that the bad blood between us seems indelible, as I have appreciated other posts of yours. I certainly do not appreciate this one, however, and I have neither the time nor the desire to joust with you. Since peaceable co-existence seems to be impossible, I would politely ask you to show me the courtesy of ignoring my posts here, and I promise to do likewise.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 08:06PM by Kyberean.

Quote:
1. "My initial comments were directed at your view that too much of a cosmic perspective and outlook would have socially disruptive consequences. I asked you to explain why, exactly, that is to be considered primarily a bad thing, and you never really replied.

......

2. If life can evolve and adapt to changing conditions on Earth, then it likely can evolve and adapt to changes elsewhere. Of course, such possible futures shall involve great hardship and sacrifice, and likely lie millennia in advance of our age, but that is no reason to dismiss them entirely.

.....

3. Quote:
To me CAS is foremost a genius artist,... This ability is still a local thing, one of many of Nature's beautiful expressions.

Perhaps it is just me, but I find this passage to be very unclear.....the term nature in a very vague... fashion,... Do you really consider, say, the phantasmagoria of the translation into the dimension of the Singing Flame, or Sterling's "Testimony of the Suns", to be "a local thing"? "

1. I find a moderate approach of cosmic outlook to be a good thing. Partly for its adventurous excitement. And also because a larger perspective will help relieve petty problems. But the whole reason I started this thread is that I find extreme cosmic ambitions that aggressively wants to pull away from the human, or say the Earthly aquarium, to only be self-destructive for us as individuals when we live here and now, adapted to local conditions. Our senses are made to relish what we have in our immediate surrounding.

2. Sure, we will explore space, and I am all for that. It's exciting! Those individuals who go, and pave the way, will of course pay a very high price. But if they travel in a closed miniature environment that simulates Earth, the pain will be less. The technical difficulties of permanently surviving away from Earth will be enormous; and anatomical changes for adapting to other environments even more complex and unstable. A lot of pain, but still a natural process of life reaching to explore beyond the horizons. So I guess I agree with you there.

3. With "Nature" I meant nature on Earth, the local conditions of our planet. Even if CAS writes about cosmic things, still form, colour, sound, sensibilities, balance, rythm, etc., are those of Earth conditions. His cosmic touch is on a spiritual level, and that is great! But I am not saying that his "cosmic" representations in form lack value; to me they are incredibly fantastic, aesthetic, and bizarre compositions made up of elements from his immediate Earth surrounding, probably with an added spiritual touch from distant stars. Furthermore, there are some elements beyond Earth available for men to work with, like pictures of the planets, and tiny images through telescopes.

The described effect of the Singing Green Flame, and its addiction, is much like that of heroin. Or opium, or Laudanum (tincture of opium) that was widely used before and around the turn of the century 1900.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 09:49PM by Ludde.

I would wish that any purely personal disputes be discussed through email.

Quote:

I would wish that any purely personal disputes be discussed through email.

So would I--or, better still, that they simply be put aside and discarded. That is why I did not reply further, and why I urged this person not to use my posts as excuses to try to score points.

I look forward to replying to your other post soon.

May I add Amen to Ludde's observation -- In the absence of background information about our correspondents (education, age, experience) it is difficult to sort out that which is merely arrogant and aggressive ego, and genuine scholarship and understanding.
I have found most writers to this forum to be thoughtful, enthusiastic, and articulate.
Now if one wishes to be a solitary voice 'crying in the wilderness' while the rest of the world is full of fools, why then rave away -- but privately please. The undressing of the ego in public is most immodest.

And on the subject of Ego, you may be assured Clark Ashton had a very healthy one --
First he took himself far less seriously than some of our writers -- he (unlike the father of Scientology) was quite sure he was not producing Holy Writ. He longed for the recognition denied him in his lifetime, but was serene enough, and collected as a person to deal with it. He did what he could to promote himself, but with his finances, that was precious little. Carol pushed the issuance of the paperback of Zothique tales - Clark was indeed a genius, but always courtly, and, for one who lived a life of penury, genteel. Only in the safest and most intimate settings would his marvelous capacity for insightful satire erupt, but never, in my experience, contempt for the object of the satire. And, after all, though the word may be disliked by some, in the final analysis is not all the speculation based on Faith? A desperate hope that a thing is - or, as desperately desired is not - true.

Calonlan:

Once again, you seem to be living in a glass house, and should mind your walls. Your semi-vague allusions are also most offensive.

Quote:

I find a moderate approach of cosmic outlook to be a good thing. Partly for its adventurous excitement. And also because a larger perspective will help relieve petty problems. But the whole reason I started this thread is that I find extreme cosmic ambitions that aggressively wants to pull away from the human, or say the Earthly aquarium, to only be self-destructive for us as individuals when we live here and now, adapted to local conditions. Our senses are made to relish what we have in our immediate surrounding.

My point is that, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, your projections of these limitations onto the entire "human race" are, I feel, unwarranted. As for the self-destructiveness you allege, you still have not proven that to be the case, or really even made a compelling argument for it, in my view.

In any case, I suppose that our difference is primarily one of degree, as I wholeheartedly advocate the extreme! Like Nietzsche's much-misunderstood Uebermensch, however, such a perspective at its extreme should serve primarily as a goal for the will. I suspect that few, if any, shall ever fully attain it. This is why I feel that the extreme is necessary for us to make even a little progress. Humanism and anthropocentrism are very deeply ingrained, and they require radical measures to extract.

Quote:

Sure, we will explore space, and I am all for that. It's exciting! Those individuals who go, and pave the way, will of course pay a very high price. But if they travel in a closed miniature environment that simulates Earth, the pain will be less. The technical difficulties of permanently surviving away from Earth will be enormous; and anatomical changes for adapting to other environments even more complex and unstable. A lot of pain, but still a natural process of life reaching to explore beyond the horizons. So I guess I agree with you there.

It's an inevitable step, I think, and will certainly be an agonizing one. "Childhood's end", indeed!

Quote:

With "Nature" I meant nature on Earth, the local conditions of our planet. Even if CAS writes about cosmic things, still form, colour, sound, sensibilities, balance, rythm, etc., are those of Earth conditions. His cosmic touch is on a spiritual level, and that is great! But I am not saying that his "cosmic" representations in form lack value; to me they are incredibly fantastic, aesthetic, and bizarre compositions made up of elements from his immediate Earth surrounding, probably with an added spiritual touch from distant stars. Furthermore, there are some elements beyond Earth available for men to work with, like pictures of the planets, and tiny images through telescopes.

I see. I appreciate the clarification. My interpretation of your comments was that you were attempting to undermine the genuineness of CAS's representation of the cosmic, and I would still very much stand by my earlier remarks defending him on that point. I do understand what you mean regarding many of the cosmic elements of CAS's fiction being re-workings--albeit imaginative and ingenious ones--of terrestrial elements. That is Poe's argument against "originality" in fantasy, as well. I think that your objections start to weaken severely, though, when one considers the verse, and especially The Star-Treader.

Quote:

The described effect of the Singing Green Flame, and its addiction, is much like that of heroin. Or opium, or Laudanum (tincture of opium) that was widely used before and around the turn of the century 1900.

Perhaps true--I've never tried any of them--but I suppose that I was objecting to the characterization of such visions as "local", or earthbound.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 11:53PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean wrote:

> Ghoti123:
>
> Your grasp of Nietzsche leaves much to be desired
> (although you are hardly alone in this).

He doesn't interest me except as a cultural phenomenon, which is why I judge him by his disciples. They all seem to be well above average in intelligence... and I'll leave the psychoanalysis there.

> Since you
> enjoy playing amateur psychoanalyst, you won't
> mind my observing that your sole aim in replying
> to my post seems to be to fill your own rather sad
> ego-need to try to score points and play the
> contrarian.

Partly, but I'd call it teasing. People often don't stop being religious when they stop being religious.

> When I saw your post, I hoped that you
> might actually have something other than
> superficial gainsaying to contribute. I also hoped
> that you had gotten over our past head-butting---I
> certainly have--but your refusal to find anything
> at all positive in my contribution,

Not true. But I was doubtful about its tendency and its tone.

> or to
> contribute anything positive or original of your
> own, demonstrates otherwise. Indeed, you appear
> to be incapable at this point of reacting to my
> posts here with anything other than Pavlovian
> negativity.

No, but when I agree with you I stay silent.

> I consider it a shame that the bad blood between
> us seems indelible, as I have appreciated other
> posts of yours.

Same here (I mean I've appreciated posts of yours, not that I've appreciated posts of mine too).

> I certainly do not appreciate this
> one, however, and I have neither the time nor the
> desire to joust with you. Since peaceable
> co-existence seems to be impossible, I would
> politely ask you to show me the courtesy of
> ignoring my posts here, and I promise to do
> likewise.

Do as you please, and I will too (as I please, I mean), subject to Boyd's moderation.