If the occupants of a space-time continuum have no choice when they are born, is it morally superior to be modern? Can we really say honestly that we are superior to those who lived before us (or after us) if they, no less than we, sought to live by their best lights? How am I morally superior to the pre-information man, or the pre-industrial man, except in the technology I take for granted? You cannot find the truth by the clock, or calendar. (Post)Modern does not mean true. Likewise, Historical should not automatically mean true, either; but every person in every age should be judged for themselves, on their own merits. The passion for the contemporary arises from the need to conform and be accepted, not from the desire for truth. There is truth in all ages and all times - neither the present nor the past should be idolized.
Seeking this truth does not lend itself well to magazines, newspapers, or blogs. SF/F is like religion, in that it seeks to take us out of our own time and place, and give us a glimpse of eternity. This is the attraction - and something philosophy can't do, easily.
For these reasons, the most important works are the primary sources of every age. It is much more important to read the primary sources, even in an anthology, than it is to read commentary on a primary source. In 2109, it will be the primary sources that are read, what people actually thought, not the commentaries. Now that Project Gutenberg exists, this is a measurable, democratic process, no longer restricted to the academy. The preservation of culture is now everyone's responsibility.
There is a way to be scholarly without being academic, that is, without earning one's keep from the scholarly pursuit. Of course that would be nice, but it is not necessary. If there is no place in the academy yet for SF/F, that is no reason to neglect it. And that is the price of admission to an academic life - neglect of everything the academy considers unimportant. Which means, right now, everything that is not realistic, serious, materialistic, and so on. In ages past the standard of the academy was metaphorical, whimsical, spiritual - why should I let the contemporary crowd out what I love? This is the cry of everyone who loves SF/F. The critique comes - why don't you embrace the "real" world? The answer is, by your own admission, "real" is the product of chemical reactions in our brains.
This means, the imagination is once more thrust onto center stage. In the Matrix, all things are possible. When the Singularity comes, which world will people choose - this one, or one developed by Joss Whedon (or Bioware)? Which one will I choose? The Singularity is SF/F made real. The Singularity is the meta-narrative. Some people will choose this world (maybe most). What about those who would be happier somewhere else? Perhaps with others; perhaps not; perhaps both at different times.
I think I have grasped what the post-moderns are talking about. Not just intellectually, but existentially as well. I see that the number of possible worlds has no end. Leibniz may be wrong - this may not be the best of all possible worlds; it may not even be close. "I think the Matrix can be more real than this world," says Cypher. This has been true as long as fiction has existed. No matter how much time goes by, fiction remains popular. The Singularity is coming - and within my lifetime. What a thrilling time to be alive, after all!
Cypher's actions are wrong, but his motives are right. He doesn't grasp this, but in the Matrix the meta-narrative once again becomes possible. Cypher is a bad representative of a glorious possibility. I know what motivates the martyrs - who refuse to let their beliefs go, even though they are a minority.
The Matrix is the fulfillment of every religion and every philosophy. If only we can avoid destroying the world long enough for it to come about. The Matrix is Enlightenment, the answers to all questions. The true end of history. The new heaven and the new earth. A sobering thought - the most popular MMORPG's are the best candidates for the Matrix. But truly, there will be no need to choose. Even the poor will have a plethora of options the rich will not care about. There will be open source options, as well as closed ones. Maybe the open options will win, when scarcity is no longer an issue. This is true trans-humanism, I think. This may be true socialism as well. The community of ideas, not property.
There will be those that argue this is immoral, that this is the most immoral choice anyone can make. Let them. As long as everyone is given the choice, it will make no difference. The popularity of the world's meta-narratives over materialism is testament to their failure. If you believe in worldview market share, materialism loses.
Seeking this truth does not lend itself well to magazines, newspapers, or blogs. SF/F is like religion, in that it seeks to take us out of our own time and place, and give us a glimpse of eternity. This is the attraction - and something philosophy can't do, easily.
For these reasons, the most important works are the primary sources of every age. It is much more important to read the primary sources, even in an anthology, than it is to read commentary on a primary source. In 2109, it will be the primary sources that are read, what people actually thought, not the commentaries. Now that Project Gutenberg exists, this is a measurable, democratic process, no longer restricted to the academy. The preservation of culture is now everyone's responsibility.
There is a way to be scholarly without being academic, that is, without earning one's keep from the scholarly pursuit. Of course that would be nice, but it is not necessary. If there is no place in the academy yet for SF/F, that is no reason to neglect it. And that is the price of admission to an academic life - neglect of everything the academy considers unimportant. Which means, right now, everything that is not realistic, serious, materialistic, and so on. In ages past the standard of the academy was metaphorical, whimsical, spiritual - why should I let the contemporary crowd out what I love? This is the cry of everyone who loves SF/F. The critique comes - why don't you embrace the "real" world? The answer is, by your own admission, "real" is the product of chemical reactions in our brains.
This means, the imagination is once more thrust onto center stage. In the Matrix, all things are possible. When the Singularity comes, which world will people choose - this one, or one developed by Joss Whedon (or Bioware)? Which one will I choose? The Singularity is SF/F made real. The Singularity is the meta-narrative. Some people will choose this world (maybe most). What about those who would be happier somewhere else? Perhaps with others; perhaps not; perhaps both at different times.
I think I have grasped what the post-moderns are talking about. Not just intellectually, but existentially as well. I see that the number of possible worlds has no end. Leibniz may be wrong - this may not be the best of all possible worlds; it may not even be close. "I think the Matrix can be more real than this world," says Cypher. This has been true as long as fiction has existed. No matter how much time goes by, fiction remains popular. The Singularity is coming - and within my lifetime. What a thrilling time to be alive, after all!
Cypher's actions are wrong, but his motives are right. He doesn't grasp this, but in the Matrix the meta-narrative once again becomes possible. Cypher is a bad representative of a glorious possibility. I know what motivates the martyrs - who refuse to let their beliefs go, even though they are a minority.
The Matrix is the fulfillment of every religion and every philosophy. If only we can avoid destroying the world long enough for it to come about. The Matrix is Enlightenment, the answers to all questions. The true end of history. The new heaven and the new earth. A sobering thought - the most popular MMORPG's are the best candidates for the Matrix. But truly, there will be no need to choose. Even the poor will have a plethora of options the rich will not care about. There will be open source options, as well as closed ones. Maybe the open options will win, when scarcity is no longer an issue. This is true trans-humanism, I think. This may be true socialism as well. The community of ideas, not property.
There will be those that argue this is immoral, that this is the most immoral choice anyone can make. Let them. As long as everyone is given the choice, it will make no difference. The popularity of the world's meta-narratives over materialism is testament to their failure. If you believe in worldview market share, materialism loses.
Comments