Reflection 13: What if John 3:16 ∴ E=mc² ?

This week's class was very slow- Just like the book itself. At some point I even questioned if Eifelheim was really a sci-fi book. It read very much like a non-fiction piece with a bit of religion here and a bit of science there. It felt too real to be sci-fi. It can even give you a warm fuzzy feeling by the time you reach Chapter 8, which I have not really expected given Emilio's tragedy, conquest of America and Isaac's song in the previous weeks. Regardless, I'm glad that we got to read about an alien encounter that takes place not in the future, in present but in the past, then gets buried and is deliberately forgotten/ erased. 

It is clear from the book that these aliens have a social hierarchy and believe in ascribed status, with very little social mobility. They look at humans and as they "learn" from (or shall I say "as they listen to") Dietrich and learn about how peasants kill their Lords, Hans explains how he finds such an incident "unnatural" (142). When Hans explains, or rather tries to explain what is natural for them, Dietrich starts imagining foul couplings with beasts and wonders how monsterous creatures could be born out of such pairing. Right before Chapter 3, we see Hans and Dietrich fleding from each other. As it was mentioned in class, it is very much unclear if the Krenken and the Humans truly understand each other after this point on. In fact, they probably did not understand each other prior this point either. Language is a big obstacle in communication, but there are bigger obstacles between the Krenken and the Humans... the obstacle of form and spirit. 

If we consider language  as means of material exchange of thoughts, it is obvious that the Krenken and the Germantown people are unable to communicate. By learning about the social system of Oberhochwald (which was the feudal system based on religion), I think the Krenken tried to slip into the mind of Dietrich to understand him, and his references better. Or perhaps...Eifelheim was a social science research area for the Krenken. Maybe the converts were merely conducting a participant observation to get inide the heads of the humans?

Additionally, as for the the formulation of John 3:16 // E=mc² on the board, Aaron and I thought it might be interesting to modify the statement into John 3:16 ∴ E=mc², to indicate a causal relationship. Religious stories, myths and miracles have inspired many scientists to try and look for real answers after all. Maybe religion should exist to create more questions, than answers and science should exist to create more answers than questions. So, they might go hand in hand...cohabitate just like Tom and Sharon.

A Common Understanding

What exactly am I supposed to take out of this book, I do not know. In fact, I did not know where the story was going as I read the book. It almost resembled a subtle tragedy taking place not only in 14th century Germany, but also between Tom and Sharon. I think at this point my focus is well beyond "monks and aliens," or  "theoretical physics of unexplainable" and more on Tom and Sharon. I think I am more interested in their relationship, for I think their marriage can explain the alien, human interaction that took place in Eifelheim as well as the 12th dimension.

I think Tom and Sharon's marriage is a modern day tragedy- or rather a modern day phenomenon of two different people living together under the same roof. Sharon understands only a little bit of Tom's historical research and Tom only perceives a little bit of Sharon's discovery. They are both after more proof, more evidence to support their ground-breaking discoveries but we never see what happens. Take Dietrich to be Sharon and consider Tom as a Krenk: Voila, the perfect depiction of paenes ( almost, in latin) understanding and yet being able to share the same roof and space. They almost speak different language to each other. Does it matter that we understand?

To understand, to internalize an input, analyze and put away or to do something about it. With this course I am now less sure about my understanding of anything. Maybe it so happens that we think differently, and we love differently and what holds us together in some cases is a bed, a house, a common area or simply put: a common understanding. I am not sure what that common understanding between Dietrich and the Krenken was.

Tackling the mass-energy equivalence & John 3:16

The comparison, if it could be said to be a comparison, between the mass-energy equivalence equation and John 3:16 that Professor Jackson posed is an interesting one. With due consideration given to all the factors in play regarding these subjects, one could argue semantics over this comparison for days on end without reaching a consensus. As such, let us first make a few distinctions between the two of these subjects.

The mass-energy equivalence equation is a scientific concept. This is to say, it has been investigated through scientific method through which the evidence was observable, empirical, and measurable, and also subject to specific reasoning. Thusly, because reasoning and empirical evidence is capable of "connecting the dots", let us say that the mass-energy equivalence equation is metonymic inasmuch as the data can be proven to be directly related to one another.

John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (KJV). One may observe that several pieces of data are incapable of being metonymically proven, nor are they metonymically (or causally) observable, empirical, or measurable. Specific reasoning may be used to subjectively validate the notion that whomever believes in Jesus Christ will have everlasting life — however, this notion cannot be said to be verified on the same level of empirical knowledge precisely because: (1) Can we observe everlasting life? No. Due to our own limited lives, this will never be possible. (2) Can we find empirical evidence of everlasting life? No, for the same reasons which answered the previous query. (3) Can we measure everlasting life? No, see previous answers ... and even more pertinent: (4) Can we observe and measure empirical evidence of belief in metonymic measurements? Definitively, the answer is that we cannot. Only metaphoric reasoning can give a sense of truthfulness to the claim that, by believing in the son of God, one may enjoy life everlasting.

The question of the hour is what kind of value do place in truth. In what situations is the truth more desirable? Are there situations in which the truth does not matter as much? The author addresses "truth" in a very interesting way: "Hope may be a greater treasure than truth" (364). That is not to say that truth does not possess value, because it a truth is being claimed with the notion of hope being more valuable than truth, but that truth is, at the same time, sometimes both necessary and unnecessary. In that same passage, truth serves the function of affirming that there is something more valuable than truth at that moment in time, and that thing is hope, truth merely serves to verify its own inability to serve a higher purpose than to verify itself.

Reconciling Portrayals of "the Other" as "the Beast"

Even after reading Eifelheim twice, there is a feeling, a response that I quite can't put my finger on. At first, I thought of the feeling as the otherness of the medieval humans. Perhaps this was only enhanced by the contrast being made even more stark by including modern-day human characters such as Tom and Sharon Nagy, whom we, as modern-day readers, are quicker to find affinity with. Then, a quote struck me on the second reading: "Dietrich saw the world suddenly through Krenkish eyes—lost, far from home, neighbors to ominous strangers who could contemplate the killing of their lords, an act incomprehensible, even bestial to them. To Hans, Dietrich was the Beast that Spoke" (139). In that moment, the aliens seem more human in their encounter with humans than the humans do with their encounter with aliens. The Krenkl have their own sense of being-ness, and an ethics in which survival, in being paramount, seems to flow from that as well.

It is fascinating, however, that the author is able to, at least for this reader, stir human feelings for other, sentient beings. Even though the Krenkl are beastly demon-devils in one age, and aliens in another — the embodiment of evil and otherness — certain humans in both ages are able to reconcile these differences. What makes certain human beings, such as Dietrich — and to some extent, Judy — able to reconcile these differences? Dietrich cares for, protects, and nourishes the Krenkl as he would human beings, albeit with more caution, due to the precarious situation that harboring "demons" places him in.

To Dietrich, the "otherness" of these aliens does not supersede their ability to have thoughts, feelings, and emotions — even a sense of humor which is not otherworldly. These are the traits of sentient beings, and the presence of them convinces Dietrich that God's love can expand to all creatures. As such, Dietrich accepts and tolerates the difference of the Krenkl. To him they are others not in that they are inhuman, but merely in that their biological makeup is different from that of humans. That is to say, that they are different life-forms in terms of their biological make-up is not as important to Dietrich as is the similarity that the Krenkl share with humans the capability to think, feel, and experience emotions. It is human, however, only inasmuch as Dietrich and the rest of humankind label these capabilities as being indicative of humane-ness.

Likewise, Judy opposes removing Johann von Sterne, Hans, from his burial site. She has attached a great sense of dignity to the Krenkl, and it is not human dignity. It is a dignity which she has extended to other life-forms, regardless of there relation, or lack thereof, to homo sapiens. What other characters have we encountered who share similar attitudes? Andrew "Ender" Wiggin and Emilio Sandoz.

Novelty

Who could have done a better job? First of all, we should reassess our criteria. What is a good outcome? What's a bad outcome? Before that, though, let's distinguish between the two "fronts" of change on Rakhat and their sources. These must be considered separately to avoid confusing distinct influences. The landing on Rakhat in turn set off two waves of change, one centered on Gayjur Palace, and the other around the VaKashan Runa.

I believe the changes implemented by the Reshtar are the result of Contact with foreigners and little more. The nature of the first crew did not cause the changes so much as their mere presence. What happened to Emilio had more to do with the aspirations and character traits of the Jana'ata than ay of his own actions or traits. Supaari was waiting for an opportunity to gain foundership. The Reshtar was uniquely receptive to anything that might upset the status quo. Rgardless of who went, as long as they made any kind of contact, Kitheri would have started to sing new songs. One way or another, anyone would have been the catalyst.

The second wave, the Runa gardens and eventually Sofia's role in fomenting revolution, could probably have been avoided, this I do not deny. Instead, I question our framing of foreign influence as somehow unnatural, something to be rejected. Humans, Runa, and Jana'ata alike evolved out of what is natural, and are themselves a part of nature. Where are the rules that decide what will be considered "unnatural"? What does it mean that this standard itself changes over time? We have a false conception of a bunch of closed-systems. This tribe over here cannot be influenced by the outside world, and nw this planet is somehow off-limits. We arbitrarily define these boundaries, and I think it is futile, counterproductive to do so. In fact, one of the traits we as humans have come to value is communication, contact within our species, the cross-pollination of ideas. Why should we be so selfish as to deny this to the species on Rakhat?

Modern hypnotists claim that people under hypnosis will not do anything they would never do while "awake;" there is no way to coerce someone using hypnosis. While I'm not so sure I believe hypnotism, I do think that this distinction applies to what happened on Rakhat. Sofia did not force anything on the Runa. The landing party did not make them plant gardens. The Runa encountered novelty, and decided the new ideas were worthwhile. I just don't see how someone can say in one scenario that it is okay to share an idea (example: the entire purpose of schools), and in another case, the other person/group/cultures does not have the right to encounter it and decide for themselves its worth. One could frame schooling in terms of interference. I would never have known about the chemical properties of water if a teacher hadn't told me. I would never have discovered that on my own. Does this mean I don't have the right to know it?

Reflection 12: Einstein and Kithari

Georges Perec wrote his 300 page novel "La Disparition" without ever using words including the letter "e." He clearly demonstrated a social phenomenon in art/literature: exclusion. Can you do that with music? I guess not. Once you take a note out of the whole composition, harmony is gone. If we are to derive meaning and purpose for our lives (which is not a biological need but rather a psychological one), then we derive that meaning and purpose from each other. Oddly enough, this depicts what Hlavin Kithari expresses on pages 82 and 83: "One must classify, compare, rank-- appreciate the inequalities so that the superb, the ordinary and the inferior may be known by their contrast." I guess at the end of the day, if we are all mere notes to a melody, we all give meaning to the whole. Or so we'd like to think. Maybe we are just delusional. Or, alternatively, we can NOT only think in these terms but set out to change reality to fit our thoughts/ideas:

 If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. ~Albert Einstein

However, can we really do that? I mean the song has no lyrics so there is hope for harmony not in the abstract sense but in its true definition. There is no possible way that we can frack Jana'ta and Runa system more with this music, or could we?

YAQMOG (Yet Another Quantum Model of God)

Kind of a heavy title, but hear me out.

On page 213 of Children of God, Frans explains Schrödingers cat to Nico. This is one of the most famous quantum physics thought experiments, and many people's introduction to subject. Frans tells Nico that according to Schrödinger, "a thing isn't true unless there's someone to observe that it's true." Now, I'm no expert on quantum mechanics, but I have taken Changing Views of the Universe, and that's gotta count for something. First of all, it's tricky to frame QM in terms of truth; that sort of epistemology is more suited to postmodernism (a close cousin to quantum mechanics, if you ask me). Let's change the words up a bit: "an event doesn't happen unless there's someone to observe that it happens." Now, this doesn't jive with the quantum mechanics I learned about. I would instead say, "an event both happens and does not happen until someone observes that it either does or doesn't happen." In this manner, Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.

At this point people usually do one of three things (not both, because of course I'm observing closely). The physicists will have left the room already, tired hearing about this stupid cat. The honest ones look at me like I'm crazy, like I've got more in common with a cat lady than a physicist. The others will just nod their heads to appease me. I haven't even gotten to the crazy(er) part. A good response to the thought experiment is "so what?" Once you open the box, the cat's either alive or dead. Whether or not quantum physics "works," the result is the same.

Well, it turns out that it does matter. On the particle level, scientists have found out that not only does a particle take all possible paths to it's destination, but in fact each of these potential paths will interfere with each other. For a more detailed description, read up on the double-slit experiments. There is scientific evidence that quantum mechanics "works" and is not just for interesting thought experiments.

And finally, after taking all possible paths, we arrive at my point. Nico says, "I think we're like the cat. I think that God is like the man outside the box. I think that if the cat believes in the man, the man is there. And if the cat is an atheist, there is no man" (213). I don't follow Frans's reasoning, so I will substitute my own. God is the cat in the box. We are outside. For all practical purposes, God both exists and does not exist. Even the most devout believers or atheists must have at some point vacillated, even for a moment and acted counter to their beliefs. Obviously that's an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe. In other words, if life is a double-slit experiment (I hope you took a look at the link!), one hole is "God," the other is "no God." Each slit is tied to belief. According to Newtonian mechanics, you can only pass through one hole. This would mean that you acted on the assumption that either God exists or doesn't your whole life. I say that this is impossible. Everybody goes through both slits, and everything that they might have done has an effect on what they actually do (ie. someone feels guilty for not believing in God).

Please help me make this make sense. Comment!

Schrödinger's Cat and Knowing

On page 143 Sophie quotes Anne: "Wisdom: true knowing. Anne said wisdom begins when you discover the difference between " that does not make sense" and "I do not understand.""However, it is easy to say you know the distinction and that you have the wisdom, for the consequences of otherwise are not desirable. A good example for this might be the old Danish fairytale The Emperor's New Clothes, where emperor's new clothes are claimed to be invisible to those who were unfit for their offices, by the tailors. Afraid of getting kicked out of their office, everyone claims to see emperor's new clothes. Everyone claimed to have truly seen, what was actually non existent. A collective delusion, if you will...where is wisdom in that? From Anne's point of view, our responses in the previous class activity makes a lot of sense. However, how does one know where s/he's standing in the "that does not make sense" and "I do not understand" continuum? Then there is the Schrödinger's Cat Experiment of knowing...which is also referenced in Rusell's book.

On page 213, Frans explains Nico the Schrodinger's Cat Experiment (*) to explain his hypothesis on God. Frans explains that man can the the cat in the box, and if the man (cat) believes that there is a God (man) outside of the box, then there is one. If the man is an atheist, then there is no God outside the box. Sticking with the same example, the only way of knowing is by opening the box, to see if the cat is still alive. Until then, the cat is considered in a superstate in which it's both dead and alive. For cat, existence of man outside the box is indifferent. Likewise, for the man, actual condition of cat is indifferent until the box is opened. Applying this notion to God is problematic simply because we do not know if God put us in the box in the first place. Perhaps it is the other way around...maybe cat is the God which we trapped in a box somewhere.

Leaving all religious implications aside and merely looking at the overall Schrodinger's Cat experiment, it is obvious that we can assume that until the time comes, there is no way of knowing. So maybe wisdom and true knowledge is achieved in retrospect- when Ender's killed all the Buggers, when Emilio is raped out f his mind and when we come to accept slavery as inhumane after years of colonization and slave trade. So, is knowledge time-oriented or time-based? Schrodinger would say yes, for after 1 hour we have the ultimate answer to our question by opening the box.

I hope we can discuss this in class.


* Here is more info on the experiment. In case you prefer Sheldon's explanation:

Reflection 11: Diffusion of Self?

I am very sorry that I missed first half of our class on Thursday. Yet, it was better than missing the whole class session. I found our class activity very thought-provoking, but I wished we discussed in more detail why we saw the pattern that was on the board. After my 3rd encounter with Todorov's Conquest of America, I am left with more notes and scribbles in my books' margins than ever. Since I did not speak up in class this week, I would like to make up by giving Todorov's book a different twist.

Todorov, at the end of his book mentions how communication allowed both explorers (Colombus and Cotres, but especially Cortes) to succeed. This is funny, because if that is the case for Western superiority- is it still working? As I mentioned couple weeks ago, when we were reading Stephenson's book, there are no more lands to conqueer- but minds. In the past, inernet was a powerful tool which could trump any internal authority (as long as you had some money to get a modem and get connected). However, some countries have cencored public internet usage, and some websites are not accessible in China and in Turkey (when I say "some," I actually mean "main arteries:" youtube, google, blogger and facebook). These countries are missing out on some communication with the rest of the world on these platforms...maybe for the better, or perhaps for the worse.

Michael Mandelbaum, in his book "The Ideas That Conquered the World" writes that "culture diffuses through voluntary means: exchange, example, imitation." He also notes that, culture might spread coercively via conquest and/or imposition. Most of us will probably agree that the conquest of America did not entail any consent from the inhibitants. However,with Columbus, story is slightly different. The exchange of gifts between the natives and the Spaniards seems a rather voluntary consequence. After all discussion in our class about measuring the level of understanding through manipulation of the other or through the desirability of the outcomes of any given interaction, I believe it's necessary to consider the cultural diffusion between the two sides -even if for a brief period of time.

On a side note, I was particularly suprised to see how a lot of people gave such low ratings to the midnight meeting story of Bradbury, where the strangers agree to disagree. I guess as westerners, or as people influenced by the west, we really expect something to follow an action-reaction dichotomy to be accountable as an interaction. However, sometimes understanding does amount to nothing. Allow me to toss out another paradox, given the popularity of the previous one: if understanding amounts to nothing then, would non-understanding lead to something? Love? Violence? Coexistence? Genocide? Fraternite? Disorientation? Orientation? Cultural exchange programs (on which I'll write about when I have more time)?

A good approach might be to distinguish between non-understanding and misunderstanding. I'm not even sure if there is an answer to the question that I am asking. I guess, understanding can kill, but that is always the easiest solution we find by not coming over the communication blocs between the self and the Other.

Cross Cultural Communication

Anyone who thinks that Cross Cultural Communication is a dumb class should really read The Conquest of America. A lot of people seem to think it's all about cultural relativism and all that. They're sick of hearing how every culture is legitimate, every culture is worthy of respect. Regardless of how you feel about cultural relativism, there is a reason to study other cultures. Even if you don't like the way they do things over there, understanding their motivations will undoubtedly help you navigate those cultural icebergs to a better result.

Cortés very quickly understood the civilizations of Central America. He understood them, and he was able to defeat them with a tiny force. I'm not even talking about Ender's "understanding." He just found their weak-spot, a biological limitation. Cortés understood Montezuma's culture, and was able to manipulate him and his people because of it.

What's the best model for Contact? I think a combination of the political realism of Schmitt informed with Todorov's awareness of sign could go a long way in helping us survive an alien encounter. I've almost given up hope on a "successful" contact, at least maybe we can live through the next landing on the White House lawn.

Columbus and the Hermeneutics of Pragmatic Materialism

In The Conquest of America, Tvetzan Todorov makes the claim that, "Columbus does not succeed in his human communications because he is not interested in them" (33). While Todorov repeatedly proved this to be the case via the analysis of multiple journal entries, to dismiss Columbus as uninterested in human communications sweeps away far too many questions to be considered a wise move on Todorov's part. Instead, we ought to examine communications across the range of Christopher Columbus's interests: human, nature, and divine.

Todorov later states that, "the readiness with which he alienates the other's goodwill with a view to a better knowledge of the islands he is discovering; the preference for land over men. In Columbus's hermeneutics human beings have no particular place" (33). By so doing, Todorov has revealed the source of his dissatisfaction with Columbus's actions: it is not that human beings have no place, but that human beings are treated as inexpendable, elastic, and without a static place in the explorer's hermeneutics. In Columbus's hermeneutics, which stem in part from his mission (to acquire gold) and his belief (in doing such things for the greater glory of God), nature and the divine repeatedly take precedence over and displace human beings. As such, Columbus could be likened to a sort of spiritual materialist. Furthermore, his method involves a pragmatic manipulation of the signs. Much like the Aztecs, for whom everything that happened was predestined by, Columbus twisted the signs of events to suit his needs. Mentioning gold for example, and interpreting signs (correctly or not) as being indicative of nearby land, were just two ways in which the explorer quashed dissent and unrest. In fact, that is how Columbus even received the opportunity for his voyages in the first place: by luring Ferdinand and Isabella with tales of riches from the Indies. And because Columbus had a hierarchical order of communications, with humans taking on a Machiavellian means to justify Columbus's desired ends: land (and thus riches), prestige, and glory to God.

Reading The Conquest of America after The Sparrow makes sense a lot of sense. In many ways, Father Sandoz and Christopher Columbus are one and the same. Both men are deeply religious. Both men are inspired by both the divine and nature, and find the divine in nature. Both men are intellectually curious, and have a penchant for languages (although Sandoz has a clear advantage over Columbus in this arena). And almost most importantly, the motto Ad maiorem Dei Gloriam could be applied to each men. I say most importantly in that, at least in Father Sandoz's hierarchy of communications, there exists a place for human beings. Todorov, while he would still fault Sandoz for failing to recognize the other's goodwill, would praise Sandoz for, unlike Columbus, approaching the other without authority or condescension. Todorov would recognize that, within Sandoz's hermeneutics, there is a place for human beings that is not always overridden by a desire to explore nature or know the divine.

Something to cheer all social/science/fictioners

Blind Eyes, Deaf Ears and A Numb Mind

My favorite philosopher of all time - who happens to be my mother- once told me: "never close the eyes of your mind- or your heart," because we are not isolated from others; we are surrounded. However, what use is seeing (with your eyes OR your mind) if we only see what we want or wish to see? This is when I see Cortes come in.

On page 91, Todorov writes "Durign th first contact of Cortes's army with the Indians, the Spaniards (hypocritically) declare that they are not seeking war, but peace and love; "they did not reply in words but with a shower of arrows" (Cortes, 21). The Indians do not realize that the words can be a weapon quite as dangerous as arrows." Yet, according to the Aztec culture words are for women and weapons for men. "what Aztec warriors did not know is that the "women" would win this war..." (92). However, Cortes understood his other better than Columbus. Yet, the consequences remain the same. Why?

This is the same question that Todorov wrestles with: "Should not understanding go hand in hand with sympathy?" (127). A paradox like non other: An understanding-that-kills. La Casas, a Priest witnessing all evil by the Spaniards loves the Indians. One might argue that he is more Christian than Columbus or Cortes, and yet he does not think violence is the answer. He knows his religion is the true religion without knowing anything about the natives. Adapting this to the current times, how can we know that our "just war" is a just war, when we do not know enough to justify waging of a just war? Or he who knows he is more civilized than the savages before his eyes, when he doesn't know about his inner savage who's after civilizing the Other? What's the solution?

Well, Todorov has a prescription: A Perfect Stranger. A man in an existential crisis, perhaps? It is true that we affect one another by merely existing. In such a circumstance, world will need more than A Perfect Stranger, but a world full of perfect strangers. To achieve this more mobility is needed, which we take as given in the 21st century. However, I do not think we are any close to Todorov's "Perfect Stranger" depiction for we leave ourselves...only to find ourselves. Being a sojourner, or a nomad, or "Perfect Stranger" loosens social ties, only to strengthen some inner ties to things we find in our true essence. For Emilio, this was faith...and at the end of the day that was all he was left with.

I won't be in class this week, so I'll appreciate if you could share your thoughts with me after you read this.

Reflection 10: Self-Annihilation On A Spiritual Level

Spiritual annihilation: I think this is precisely what Emilio experienced at the end of the book. However, since Emilio defines himself most with his spiritual side, this did amount to self-annihilation for him.  As I pointed out in class, the mission's members were very unreceptive of the signs around them. Emilio's late experience if anything, lead him to wake up from a long sleep. Yes, it was a bitter experience but it allowed Emilio to question how he made sense of his life and his surroundings. I think I made the claim that this was a test for Emilio's sanity: I take that claim back. I think what he experienced is considered generally wrong in 2 planets: 1. On page 260, we read that most Jana'ata "do not even like music," (sadly, an information which was never scrutinized) 2. It is considered morally wrong to "invade" someone else's body against his/her consent. Will Emilio ever recover? I guess I'll learn that soon. However, how can one reconcile with bitter experiences of their past?

On a broader scale...how could the oppressed come to love his oppressor? How could one come to terms with their past mistakes?  How could Tutsis and Hutus reconcile after so many bitter memories? How can we avert each other's nightmares, when we-ourselves- are incompetent of dreaming... each other's dreams?

Disowning the Children of God

In class on Thursday I questioned the idea of a mission "to know and love God's other children." What, I asked, happens if we simply can't love them? Do we turn around in failure, content with the fact that we gave it our all? Or, do we change them so that we can love them. A lot of our discussion centered around this notion, the morality of changing society on Rakhat into something that jives with our conceptions of right and wrong. This conversation usually heads down the road of a cultural reletavism debate, and I get enough of that in Cross-Cultural Communication. After class, I thought about a third option that makes sense in light of some of our other readings. The easiest solution is to accept that the aliens on Rakhat are not God's children.

As I have said a few times, Manifest Destiny is a constant re-characterization of our interests and motives. If we wanted to expand our territory, then we just rationalized our way right through the native Americans or other colonial powers. The indigenous people were hardly people at all, and therefor had no right to their land, or even their way of life. It is conceivable, then, that this could happen on Rakhat. If we failed to love them, it is not our fault; they are not God's Children. This paves the way for all kinds of injustices. I probably don't need to remind you what Carl Schmitt had to say about fighting for "humanity."

A tricky thing about Rakhat, however, is that there are at least two other species that one could safely call inhuman. It's hard to think of them as such, but the Jana'ata and the Runa are not genetically related. They are literally different beasts. There is a clear gradation of intelligences on the planet, putting outsiders face-to-face with realities of nature (as in vs. nurture) that make comparing the social structure on Rakhat awkward to compare to any historical human societies. Drawing a parallel to antebellum South feels wrong, because although there are some similarities, we can't forget that the Runa are, as a race, not capable of the same intellectual capacity as the Jana'ata.

I am looking forward to reading Children of God to find out what humans decide to do with this planet. I have become used to authors forcing readers to speculate at what happens next, and I would not have been surprised to see Russell do the same. Children of God is exciting because we the readers get a chance to sit back after reading The Sparrow, think hard about our predictions, and then see what actually happens. I know it'll probably be depressing, but I can't wait for more.

Betrayal

His Master's Voice and The Sparrow make for an interesting back-to-back read. Both books are essentially stories faith and betrayal. Obviously each book has a different substrate, so to speak. I read HMV, and I think SCIENCE. I read The Sparrow, and think GOD. The ingredients dropped into these drastically different broths are really quite similar. Both books end up saying a lot about faith, and how it feels to be let down.

In His Master's Voice, the main character and the people around him believe that science (well, maybe not all sciences), when applied to a problem should be able to solve it. When scientists in the US discover a radio signal that might originate with another intelligent species, the US government whips together a compound of 2,000something scientists of all kinds to decode the message, or at least determine whether or not it is really alien. The fervor with which they attempt to tackle the puzzle matches that of the Jesuits in The Sparrow.

Often in The Sparrow, the Jesuits insist that God is in the "why." One would imagine than scientists only concern themselves with "what," but His Master's Voice is a different scenario than most physicists or mathematicians are used to. As the narrator likes to point out often enough, there very well might be another sentient race on the other side of the beam, and that adds another dimension to its study. They don't just want to know what the beam is, but why is it there at all?

While Lem didn't let his characters get as far as Russell took the Jesuits, they were both confronted with failure of sorts. Ultimately, they were left with nothing but there faith in something they could probably never know for sure. Were they betrayed by what they believed in? Could be, but I don't think that there is doubt that there is potential that that "betrayal" could strengthen that faith, temper it. Maybe? We'll have to see what happens in the next book.

On "Running Low on Faith" -or God

I found it really ironic that I was reading the Sparrow this week given that only 2 nights ago I was listening to news about a priest who had abused 200 deaf children. News came into light when a 61 year old former victim (who was raped at the age of 12) confessed. When the topic is rape, we say "God forbid," yet which God do we trust? The God we share with, um, jerks out there? Or the God we share with moral elite? Is he the moral dictator, or the silent observer? Is God really "out there somewhere" (252)? How many ways are there to seek that God? One might say there are various ways to seek that God- you know, through mediation, chanting, praying, recreational drug use, even through orgasmic expeditions in other people's bodies (with or without consent). At the end of the day, we may or may not find what we are looking for. BUT if finding what we are looking for is not knowing what we are looking for, then where does that search begin -and more importantly where does it end? Who finds it first and who runs away with it?If there is some kind of God, do you think he's pleased with what we go about doing in the name of Him?

If alien encounter is equivalent to encountering something comprehensible, or experiencing something that almost amount to a traumatic experience, is it really worth the trouble? Well I think it really depends on what you experience...for human experience is inalienable as long as one remains sane. Given we are not robots to cast amnesia whenever we need it, we are very much defined by our life experiences and our most basic information about our selves. As human beings we are programmed to always go back to the start until we lose our way or our minds. Emilio found comfort in believing that the antidote of his experiences could be in thinking that God was with him or that he was still searching for God- a principle he followed for as far back as he could remember. His devotion was perhaps his sole cause of survival. Yet, did Emilio really survive? Some say being human is being a living soul.
After his confession, is Emilio still a living soul? He does request to stay longer with Giulani (to his suprise) and it is a good indicator of how he never gave up on his belief- and it was his belief that allowed him to survive despite all his misery/transformation.

A very powerful piece indeed.