September 2004 posts


Previous September 2004  

More September 2004

why were all the characters, except for buffy and spike, underused in S7?? -- ghady, 10:06:32 09/09/04 Thu

this season (tho i'm loving it--just saw Lies My Parents Told ME) seems to be a "buffy a spike" flick.
There are only a few eps which focus on other characters..
Willow has more than the others
Dawn has Potential
Anya has Selfless and Storyteller (and bits of others early in the season)
Xander has Storyteller and little bits and pieces here and there, but he didn't even have a line to say in LMPTM.. NOT ONE LINE!! We only saw him for ONE second--no exaggeration.
And Anya's only purpose in LMPTM was to say that sarcastic line abt buffy forgiving spike.
what's up w/ all that neglect?? why not be creative and turn Dawn back into a key... or give her keyish powers.. or sthg.. that's my only complaint abt this season so far..

Replies:

[> because the story of buffy & spike "IS" the main story of the series -- frisby, 10:32:44 09/09/04 Thu

Spike's redemption through his love of Buffy is one of the top stories of the entire series. The series closes with Buffy's final four words (3 plus 1): I love you ... Spike

[> [> It truly closes with more words than that, frisby:) But that would be real spoilers. -- Briar Rose, 16:15:55 09/09/04 Thu


[> [> [> Spoiler? I'm sorry -- wasn't thinking. Don't read this if spoilable. -- frisby, 03:57:08 09/10/04 Fri

Sorry for any spoilage -- I simply forgot not everyone has seen everything. But those are Buffy's last four words in the series. Do you really think it wasn't planned? That that long silence after saying "Spike" was not done with full knowledge of what her last words were? Maybe those writers just like playing both sides against the middle, providing resource for various interpretations while not enough for conclusive determination. By the way Briar Rose, I might recommend a book for you, _Sex, Power, and Time_ by Leonard Shlain. It's anthropological and evolutionary biological, but centers on the greatest and most mysterious discovery of all humanity: woman's realization of the harmony of her monthly cycle with the moon's cycle so as to infer the existence of 'deep time' about 100,000 years ago, making all else possible that we have become. While reading it I also had this vision relating the full moon and new moon to the origin of the werewolf and vampire archetype, but that's another story. Also, by the way, did you happen to know that Plato's _Republic_ opens with reference (indirectly) to Hecate?

[> [> [> [> Thank you for the recommendation, frisby! I'll have to check it out. Have you. . . -- Briar Rose, 17:55:43 09/13/04 Mon

Have you checked out "Women Who Run With the Wolves" and "When God Was a Woman"? They both also deal with those synchronius cycles.... This is a fascinating subject, and I have always been very attuned to it, and seek out information on it.

Honestly you're correct that the true ending to BtVS was her words to Spike. I do think they could have left it there. In many ways they should have. But the series ended with Buffy smiling and saying something about "So what do we do tomorrow?" and everyone walking away like old times. I was rather choked up by the ending they used. That Buffy was finally "just a girl" again and that her dreams of living a normal life had pretty much been granted in reward for her dedicated service.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- frisby, 07:23:45 09/14/04 Tue

Yes, Merlin Stone has become a marker in the area. But I like Shlain's _Alphabet and the Goddess_ better.

Buffy's last word is "Spike" to Giles -- It is Dawn and Faith who keep saying "What do we do now" -- Buffy is silent and just smiles

... but "her" last four words really are I love you Spike

[> [> [> [> [> [> frisby, I'm gonna look for that in the Season 7 DVD. . . . -- Briar Rose, 19:33:06 09/17/04 Fri

I'm seriously looking forward to that scene again, now. Is it really her last complete sentence? I think it should have been, and I'm going to enjoy that scene even more now.

Thank you for that information.

And interestingly, I was never a Spuffy shipper, but those two characters had more history and connection than she ever had with anyone outside of Giles and Joyce.

[> To be fair, season 2 was pretty much the Buffy and Angel Variety Hour. -- BrianWilly, 17:54:24 09/09/04 Thu


[> [> i know, but at least in S2, every character had a lot of lines to say per episode!! -- ghady, 23:49:59 09/09/04 Thu


[> [> [> Re: i know, but at least in S2, every character had a lot of lines to say per episode!! -- Liam, 09:15:02 09/11/04 Sat

I agree with you there, ghady. Also, at least Angel left to go to LA at the end of season 3. By comparison, the writers, by season 5, were inventing any excuse to keep Spike around: he's in love with Buddy, then he's having sex with Buffy, and finally he's being helped by Buffy. I remember predicting by season 5 to a friend that Spike would sacrifice himself out of love for Buffy.

[> [> [> [> Re: i know, but at least in S2, every character had a lot of lines to say per episode!! -- Rook, 11:50:09 09/11/04 Sat

>>Spike around: he's in love with Buddy, then he's having sex with Buffy

Ah yes, the ill-fated Buffy-Spike-Buddy love triangle. I really wish they would have focused on this rather than that lame Buffy-Spike-Angel thing.

:)

[> [> I agree a little, but... -- DorianQ, 21:53:42 09/11/04 Sat

at least the other characters had good arcs, especially Giles. None of the characters in Season Seven can say that. The only one that had an arc of any kind (other than B/S) was Willow, Anya had an episode to herself, as did Andrew and Dawn, and that's it. And in Season Two, Angel(us) was the main focus of the plot. Season Seven, the Buffy and Spike stuff wasn't even connected to the First Plot other than the mind control stuff.

[> Part of it may be simple arithmetic -- Rich, 17:56:27 09/12/04 Sun

For much of the season, the house was full of potentials, who had to be given at least a few lines (Hence the number of "group" scenes at Scooby Central, with one character talking & a bunch of potentials just reacting).

More characters + same amount of time = less time/character.

I agree that this doesn't completely explain it - frisby's already mentioned another factor.

I'd add that a sub-theme this season was Buffy's lack of connection to her "followers", which would have been weakened if we add seen her interacting very much with anyone other than Spike.

[> [> I think I might have been the main theme -- DorianQ, 23:14:06 09/12/04 Sun

I actually thought that was the most interesting aspect of the season and I really wish they had brought it out earlier. I wasn't even aware of it before Lies and Faith's Reemergence. Before that, she was still the leader that she had always been before with the Scoobies, just giving really inspirational speeches. I just thought that Joss was trying to impart important lessons that he hadn't fully imparted previously in the series and I didn't see the division being negative until Lies.

[> [> [> I think IT! I think IT! Curse my stupid proofreading abilities -- DorianQ, 11:19:47 09/13/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> & here we were all thinking you had *serious* delusions of grandeur.... @>) -- anom, 16:42:40 09/13/04 Mon


[> [> [> Re: I think I might have been the main theme -- life04, 13:20:50 09/19/04 Sun

Don't forget that the series is mainly about Buffy. She is, aft er all, the main character. And since Spike played a major role in her character development - especially in the later years - it is not surprising that Buffy and Spike were more or less, the main characters of Season 7.

However, the other Scoobies did play a strong role in Season 7 - except for the last third of the season, when Spike, Faith and the Potentials took center stage.
Joss to write/direct X-Men 3? -- cjl, 10:39:50 09/09/04 Thu

From Dave Davis at Chud.com:

"About a month ago, Buffy the Vampire Slayer mastermind Joss Whedon publicly declared an interest in taking on the next X-Men movie now that Bryan Singer has traded mutants for a cape and a big "S". Was someone at Fox listening?

"If the industry newscatcher Production Weekly is to be believed (and I'm told they're rarely wrong, if ever), ears were indeed open, and wise decisions were made. According to them, Whedon is onboard to direct X3, with the production gearing up in Vancouver next June.

"Of course, there's currently no script, and to the best of my knowledge no major talent has actually signed for the movie (and we know Halle Berry has little interest in returning unless she's in the spotlight). But Whedon certainly has a handle on the characters judging by his excellent run on Marvel's Astonishing X-Men series, and we know from his remarkable television work that he can juggle multiple characters, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult for him to whip up a fine screenplay (especially considering he worked on the first film's script).

"As a massive Whedon fan I know I'd be first in line to see it, but he's currently putting the finishing touches on Serenity, the feature follow-up to his space western series Firefly, so we'll see if he's got time for mutant mayhem."

What say you, ATPo-ers? Any further confirmations or refutations? Wish lists (James Marsters as Gambit; Gina Torres replacing Halle Berry as Storm)? Kvetching?

Replies:

[> Waiting for a confirmation before I get too excited -- Pony, 10:55:28 09/09/04 Thu

But I think it would be awesome. A chance for Joss to get some real clout in Hollywood - which means an easier path for future projects - and an X-Men movie that would actually have good writing. Talk about win-win.

I love the JM as Gambit idea (the accent alone would be to die for) and I'm thinking Jewel Straite for Shadowcat. Now I just wish I knew more Marvel characters to figure out roles for ASH, AD, AA and NB.

[> [> If this is the Dark Phoneix storyline, Joss could hire half the Buff/Angel cast as the Hellfire Club -- cjl, 11:11:22 09/09/04 Thu

Emma Frost/White Queen - Julie Benz or Stephanie Romanov

Jason Wyndgarde/Mastermind - Alexis Denisof

Selene - Alyson Hannigan

Sebastian Shaw - ASH

Donald Pierce - Nic Brendon

[> [> Joss is the only person I can see being qualified enough to direct after Bryan Singer... -- Rob, 12:00:50 09/09/04 Thu

Your choice for Shadowcat is perfect. I don't even know the character very well, beyond Astonishing X-Men, but I could totally see that.

Rob

[> Re: Joss to write/direct X-Men 3? -- Kenny, 12:49:11 09/09/04 Thu

Ooh...Gina Torres as Ororo...that's perfect, cjl. She actually has, what's that thing called? Oh, presence. And she looks much more like the Storm I have in my head (she's been trying to get me to let her out for years, but I'm just a sick little bastard).

I like the girl who did the Kitty cameo in the second, so I don't think they need to recast. It could be funny, though, for them to have a different Kitty in each movie. Do a "Days of Future Past" and have AH as Rachel? A blond Stephanie Romanov as the White Queen (actually, I see her as Sage, but that's too obscure a character for the movie)? Actually, SR could probably be a kick-ass Polaris, if written as the strong woman she was in PAD-Factor and not the mental case everyone else makes her out to be. Tom Lenk as Arcade. Danny Strong as Cypher. VK as a young Angel :)

[> Re: Joss to write/direct X-Men 3? -- Haunt, 14:11:52 09/09/04 Thu

Just as Patrick Stewart is the only actor on earth that should ever have been considered for the role of Charles Xavier, Angela Basset is the only actress that should ever be considered for Storm. Ever seen 'Strange Days'? Her character in that WAS Storm. Halle Berry should never have been cast in the role.

[> [> Angela Bassett as Storm. That would be amazing. -- cjl, 14:26:01 09/09/04 Thu

Oh, yes indeed, I do remember "Strange Days." Angela was the only thing worthwhile in the whole movie.

If Joss can get her, he should get her. But if she's too much for the budget or other circumstances interfere with the shooting schedule, Gina T. is the best option.

ITA that Halle Berry never should have been cast for this role.

[> [> [> Re: Angela Bassett as Storm. That would be amazing. -- Kenny, 19:15:38 09/09/04 Thu

I've read that Angela Bassett turned down the role in the first movie. The only support I could find was the X-Men trivia page on IMDB, so take this for what it's worth.
I just picked up a copy of v.3 of The Watcher's Guide -- Cactus Watcher, 13:31:35 09/09/04 Thu

Since the DVDs started coming out I've quit buying the script books. But, volume 3 has a script for Restless, which I will be happy to have.

I know I said elsewhere recently that I don't collect fan material. But, I consider this to be reference material.

Replies:

[> I'll say it loud and proud: I collect fan material! -- Briar Rose, 16:23:44 09/09/04 Thu

CW - sometimes the best way to truly get behind the story lines is to collect the "fan" material.

It's also fun to see alternate interpretations of what could have happened to certain characters through the graphic novels and paper backs. No, they may not be cannon, but some of them are highly interesting as to what other authors see as potential storylines for certain characters.

There's a lot in the "Monster Books" as there was on the old website. Sometimes the whole "BtVS as psychological hot bed" is not as interesting as the mythology behind the creatures and the stories being told.

It's okay to put aside the ivory tower posturing and curmudgeounley attempts to only look at BtVS and Angel as a scholarly pursuit! What's wrong with being a fan and giving in to entertainment alone?

>^..^<

[> [> Re: I'll say it loud and proud: I collect fan material! -- CW, 22:36:10 09/09/04 Thu

Didn't mean to sound like I was running down fan material. A lot of folks like you and Cheryl below get a lot of enjoyment from it. The situation in which I wrote that I didn't collect fan stuff was literally a list of embarrassing admissions about being a fan. Sometimes if you're not interested in particular things it's hard to explain to your fellow fan friends.

I understand collecting, and how much fun it can be. When friends are happy I'm happy. I like hearing about it when friends get the autographs and what-not they really want. Besides, if I don't collect it there's more for the rest of you, right?

[> [> [> I agree CW, just wanted whacked fans like me to feel better.;) -- Briar Rose (tweeking your leg in #1 reply), 17:43:41 09/13/04 Mon


[> Re: I just picked up a copy of v.3 of The Watcher's Guide -- Cheryl, 19:53:55 09/09/04 Thu

I ordered it when I pre-orderd Angel S4 so should be getting it next week, just in time for my vacation. I really enjoyed the first two Watcher Guide's and Angel's Case Files. I love all the behind the scenes stuff (that's why I love all the extras on DVDs).

[> [> I really want to know what you're going to be watching this fall. -- CW, 22:42:51 09/09/04 Thu

I was watching NBC tonight
Joey wasn't too bad.

The Apprentice was... well The Apprentice.

Medical Investigation seemed way over the top.

Anybody else see them?

[> [> [> Re: I really want to know what you're going to be watching this fall. -- Cheryl, 12:56:39 09/10/04 Fri

First - my Amazon delivery came early! The Angel DVDs and Watchers Guide just arrived a few minutes ago. :-)

I watched Joey, too. It was okay - from all the positive hype I was expecting something better. But I'll keep watching because I like the character.

I never got into The Apprentice - or most reality programs, for that matter (other than American Idol). I watch very little television these days and even cancelled my TV Guide subscription in July (which I've had for over 20 years). The television landscape is so dismal, especially without any Whedon shows on now.

I was watching Rescue Me on FX until this past week. It became too much of a soap opera for me. I loved Arrested Development and am looking forward to that starting again.

I might start watching The West Wing again. I lost interest a couple of years ago but heard it's turned around.

One of my favorite shows is The Dead Zone, but that's only on in the summer.

I remember reading about a couple of new shows on Tuesday nights that sounded interesting, but I can't remember now what they were!

[> [> [> [> Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- CW, 18:53:13 09/10/04 Fri

Have a great time watching your DVDs!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- Jane, 20:00:46 09/10/04 Fri

Regrettably, there are none on mine either. However, I may check out a show on Wednesday at 8p.m. on ABC called "Lost". The creator is J.J. Abrams, who did Alias. TV week describes it as being like Gilligan's Island meets The Twilight Zone. Could be interesting...or not.
I'm also going to watch the series premiere of "Justice League Unlimited" tonight at 9p.m. Never really been into animated series, but hey, I'm desperate here.
Thank heavens for DVDs.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- Rook, 08:10:52 09/11/04 Sat

Lost is also being co-produced by David Fury, if you hadn't realized that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- rob, 12:23:37 09/11/04 Sat

I'm very much looking forward to "Lost," too, and I might also check out "Jack and Bobby," if only because Entertainment Weekly sent out a free sampler DVD of the entire pilot episode with each magazine last week, to subscribers. Pretty cool marketing campaign, eh?

Oooh, and "Justice League Unlimited" is absolutely awesome. I started watching only a few weeks ago and have seen about five episodes total thus far, but I'm loving it. It's very intelligent, well-animated, well-voiced, etc. Really worth watching.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's me, btw. I don't usually do my name in lower-case. Typo. -- Rob, 12:25:23 09/11/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We'd guessed. -- LittleBit, 20:38:24 09/11/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- Jane, 21:17:39 09/11/04 Sat

Watched Justice League last night, and quite enjoyed it! Good, since I'm not really a fan of animated series. Lost looks increasingly positive, what with David Fury and all. Will give it a try.
And hey rob/Rob? There can be only one, you know ;)
So I guessed it was you!!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rats, no viewing miracles on your TV either. ;o) -- Rook, 08:14:44 09/11/04 Sat

If you're looking for a television miracle, and haven't already seen it...and have Showtime, I'd reccomend "Dead Like Me". The first season's out on DVD, the 2nd is running now.
Buffy Books -- BuffyObsessed, 12:31:12 09/10/04 Fri

I've read a lot of Buffy Books so far, but I am looking for more. Can some people tell me what books they recommend out of the Buffy or Angel series. Thanks. By the way, I really like the books with both Buffy and Angel so any of those titles would be really appreciated! Thanks again!

Replies:

[> Re: Buffy Books -- WillowtheWisp, 13:19:23 09/10/04 Fri

I can't remember the name of it...but it's a four part series of books that are about an altered reality. Evil has overtaken Sunnydale and Giles is the "vampire king" of that area.


Also...Tales of the Slayers volumes 1 and 2 are very good.

[> [> Christopher Golden -- dmw, 14:38:42 09/10/04 Fri

That's The Lost Slayer by Christopher Golden. Some of the stories from the Tales of the Slayers volumes are his too. He's the only BtVS novel writer that's worth reading; Nancy Holder is fine with him, but noticeably weaker when writing on her own. He also wrote Pretty Maids All in a Row, which focuses on Spike and Dru and deals with the slayer lineage in a much more interesting and thoughtful way than s7 did before s7 was written.

[> [> The Lost Slayer, is the one WillowtheWisp is talking about. They have an omnibus version out now.:) -- Briar Rose, 17:40:03 09/13/04 Mon


[> Re: Buffy Books -- BrianWilly, 20:14:22 09/10/04 Fri

I'm not a huge Buffybook collector so you might have read this one already, but I really liked the crossover book Monster Island. It's not too often you get to cram the entire cast from both shows into one massive blob of fun and still have strong, coherent characters shine through.

[> Re: Buffy Books -- D rock, 08:13:33 09/12/04 Sun

I read the "pretty maids in a row" book an that was, imo, the best of the bunch. Golden and Holder wrote a three part story called the "gate keeper triolgy" that was fun when I read it, but it has been a couple years. The only problem I have with the books is that so few of the writters take the time to write the storys in a way that makes sence to the shows timeline. As far as other books that are good I can't think of any specific titles. I am finishing up "seven crows" right now which has been ok. Its Buffy, Sam, Riley and Angel hunting vampires togeather near the mexican boarder. Its nothing great but its fun read a story that takes place after the last time Riley is showen on the series.

~ D

[> [> About "Seven Crows" -- Duell, 19:52:16 09/13/04 Mon

That is a good one, except there is a line at the beginning that made me think that it took place the summer post-S7, but talked about Dawn going back to Sunnydale High. Still a fun read, and I could be wrong about that, but I think it's out of continuity. Of course "Pretty Maids All in a Row" tramples all over the shows' continuity and it is still the best one of all of the books. "These Our Actors" was good too, and gives some interesting backstory that fans of the series could apply to Cecily/Halfrek.

[> [> [> Re: About "Seven Crows" -- D Rock, 20:16:27 09/13/04 Mon

What is in pretty maids that meeses with continuity?

~ D

[> [> [> [> Re: About "Seven Crows" -- BuffyObsessed, 13:40:30 09/14/04 Tue

This was one of the books that I did read. It messes with continuity because in it Spike kills a third slayer. In the tv show it was cleary stated that Spike killed only 2 slayers, the chinese one and the one in New York. The one Spike kills in Pretty Maids All in a Row is definately not the one from new york (it was set way before that happened) and it was not the chinese girl because if i remember correctly she was from Copenhagon, or however you spell that, in Denmark. This may not be the correct place she was from but she was still definately NOT chinese.
Are slayers really superior to ordinary humans? -- megaslayer, 06:37:17 09/10/04 Fri

Sure they are stronger and more powerful than a human but doesn't really make them better. There are other champions out there with a destiny by being chosen by the powers. Alot of humans fight without superpowers and can do alot of good. Superpowers doesn't make you superior just luckier than the rest.

Replies:

[> Re: Are slayers really superior to ordinary humans? -- Evan, 08:16:52 09/10/04 Fri

That's exactly what Anya said in "Empty Places", and was one of the main themes of Season 7. They laid it out in "Conversations With Dead People" through her conversation with vampJonathan Woodward. She has a superiority complex because of her superpowers, but deep down she knows that she isn't really better. None of her "superiority" came from any action of her own, she was more or less just arbitrarily picked by some ancient magic trick. So, she has an inferiority complex from feeling superior.

The real problem, though, is that her powers, and her complexes, completely alienate her from her friends and all of those around her. In Selfless, she's forced to make the decision that one of her friends must die. "At some point, someone has to draw the line, and that is always going to be me. You get down on me for cutting myself off, but in the end the slayer is always cut off. There's no mystical guidebook. No all-knowing council. Human rules don't apply. There's only me. I am the law." This is the loneliest place anyone can possibly be, especially when deep down she doesn't even feel that she truly did anything to deserve this position.

This is also why she refuses to kill Spike all season. She's just tired of making that decision. Tired of seeing people around her "need" to get killed for the greater good. She wanted to hold on to just this one and give him a chance to become a better man. She didn't want to distance herself and cut her off from him, because she felt a real connection with him.

But, then, with the ones she did feel cut off from, the potentials, she was too reckless. She took her own "I am the law" philosophy too far. She tried to force them into dangerous situations that they weren't willing to face and this frustrated her so much, because she didn't even really want to make that decision in the first place. She had Giles and everyone saying "we've gotta kill Spike for the greater good", but when she says "we've gotta kill some potentials for the greater good", they mutiny. And, furthermore, her whole teenagerhood and beyond was spent knowing that, in the end, SHE was eventually gonna end up dying for the greater good. Buffy was just so alone and so frustrated by the end of Season 7.

That's why I think Chosen is just an absolutely brilliant ending, because now that there are more than one, Buffy is actually luckier, in a sense, because even though she still has the physical powers that make her "superior" she no longer has the isolation that stops her from getting close to people because of the fear that she might one day have to kill them, or, barring that, that her dangerous lifestyle might eventually get them killed anyway.

Alright, I'm gonna be late for work.

Evan.

[> By definition, Slayers are physically superior -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:12:00 09/10/04 Fri

Whether that gives them social, moral, or spiritual superiority is a matter of opinion.

[> Are slayers really superior to ordinary humans? -- Dlgood, 12:17:47 09/10/04 Fri

Sure they are stronger and more powerful than a human but doesn't really make them better.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by better? Is this a statement of opinion, or are you looking to explore and discuss the title question? If so, could you perhaps supply more detail and give me some examples and counter-examples.

[> [> Re: Are slayers really superior to ordinary humans? -- megaslayer, 12:59:40 09/10/04 Fri

Gunn can take out multiple vamps or a few demons without the aide of special powers and so can riley. Fred/cordy/xander and giles can take on a few vamps and they has no great physical power. Slayers have it easier because they were given power. Dawn gave her power to Amanda in potential, Xander pointed out they have no idea what is like to fight without special abilities. No one around them knows that that is perhaps the toughest job of all. It requires extraordinary bravery, the ability to think on your feet, and a willingness to do the job and rarely get the glory.

[> [> [> The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations -- Dlgood, 15:21:31 09/10/04 Fri

It requires extraordinary bravery, the ability to think on your feet, and a willingness to do the job and rarely get the glory.

Doesn't this also describe almost every slayer, with the possible exception of Faith in S3-4?

I would posit, that in evaluating a person and measuring "heroism" is the person showing the strength of character required to use whatever abilities they have to do good. Should one penalize a Slayer because she has more physical capability? Should one give non-slayer bonus points simply because they lack said ability?

What if the Slayer has three times the strength of a non-slayer, but works ten times harder then the equivalent non-slayer? If a Slayer works as hard as a non-slayer, and gets as much out of her talent (relatively) as a non-slayer does with theirs, then aren't they equally heroic individuals? Certainly, we've seen Buffy spent infinitely more time in training than we've ever seen Xander working out.

Slayers have it easier because they were given power.

Do they?

The Slayer's increase in power, relative to "regular" humans, is accompanied by a corresponding increase in expectations and responsibilities. The non-slayer has the freedom to choose not to fight. Someone else will pick up the slack. The non-slayer has the freedom to fail - the slayer is under far greater pressure. And while the non-slayer is making some sacrifice to join the fight, is it a great sacrifice if that's what they wanted to do anyway?

Isn't the Slayer entitled to the same type of life that a non-slayer would aspire to? And if so, isn't her willingness to continue fighting just as significant a sacrifice as the non-slayer's? But within the reality of the 'verse, the Slayer cannot truly quit as non-slayer's have the option to do. She will still be hunted down by demons who wish to make a name by killing her just because she's the slayer, or by Vampires who wish to drink her blood -- which is combination aphrodisiac and Super V-8 cocktail. And if, for whatever reason, the slayer does walk away - unlike the "normal" human, she would not be forgiven or respected as long as she does not fight. Up until the day she invariably dies in battle.

That doesn't necessarily seem "easier" to me.

[> [> [> [> Re: Great Post - The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations -- Can I Be Anne?, 13:41:11 09/13/04 Mon

Missing the Point.

Buffy's responsibility as The Slayer was always something she held above all else. She gave her life twice and there were many times she knew she may not make it out of a situation, but went into battle nonetheless. No matter what you want to say about her, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was not nonchalant about her duties. She valued human life above all else. She was NEVER afraid to take the consequences of her actions as Slayer. Her personal life is another matter, but as far as being The Slayer - her physical abilities only enhanced her pure heart. She was THE Chosen One, and she never let me down. Ever. You saw the pureness of her heart in the very first episode, in a scene that had nothing to do with her slaying abilities, but in her sense of decency as a human being. She befriended Willow immediately. Knowing that it was going to make her even more of an outcast than she needed to be. This had nothing to do with being The Slayer, just with being kind. And Buffy showed that kindness all the time. She went though her darkness of the soul, but ultimately, her kindness prevailed.

I don't think the story of Buffy has anything to do with her enhanced physical abilities, but more about the power of her heart and how that helped to save the world. Over and over again. Buffy is a Hero sure, but she is also a human being with human foibles. What sets her above all the others is not the fact that she sacrificed her very life, but the fact that she was handed a terrible burden, not of her choosing, and yet she chose to fulfill her obligations, all the while making changes to the slayer line that would ultimately enhance and set free the next girl who was to be burdened with the daunting task. She did her job, and made the job more endurable for those who will ultimately come after her. Buffy not only saved the world. She changed It.

[> Re: Are slayers really superior to ordinary humans? -- Riz, 13:27:44 09/10/04 Fri

The power alone doesn't make her better. It's what she chooses to do with it that does - or at least it does make her special. Faith was a better fighter than, say, Xander, but I think that most people would agree that (the old) Faith wasn't a better person.

Buffy was CHOSEN to do it, whereas everyone else can choose to do it. If Buffy had of chosen not to use her power, she would be denying her responsibilty. Not to mention the guilt she would face and the fact that she would have the council hunting her down.

Buffy was a better fighter than most people and she was forced into a situation where she had to exercise her power the whole time. Who the better people are is pretty much entirely down to personal opinion. Though when dicsussing "good guys", is that really necessary?

[> Define Superior -- LeeAnn, 16:52:59 09/10/04 Fri

One organism is generally considered superior to another if it leaves more copies of its DNA, generally as offspring. Since Slayers die young and rarely reproduce, they are, by definition, biologically inferior.

Superior also means "of higher rank, quality, or importance." Screw rank and quality but Slayers are of higher importance because they save people from vampires and demons.
Buffy's all right, but Nina? Necrophilia is now illegal in California -- Liam, 09:03:40 09/11/04 Sat

California State Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger recently signed a bill banning necrophilia, making sex with a corpse a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison.

As Buffy's no longer having sex with Angel and Spike, she appears to be in the clear, but what about Nina? If vampires are walking corpses, animated by demons, sex with them is necrophilia, which is now illegal under the laws of California.

Of course, 'Angel' had to be cancelled before such a fascinating development could be used for a story; but I'm sure that fanfic writers will make good use of this. :)

What do people think?


__________________________________
The story can be found at:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&e=6&u=/nm/20040910/od_uk_nm/oukoe_crime_necrophilia_1

Replies:

[> Re: Buffy's all right, but Nina? Necrophilia is now illegal in California -- skpe, 09:25:23 09/11/04 Sat

Since Nina is a wolf 3 days out of the month does she also come under the leash laws?

[> [> Necrophilia has always been illegal in California. This just deliniates definitions. -- Briar Rose, 17:38:38 09/13/04 Mon


[> Re: Buffy's all right, but Nina? Necrophilia is now illegal in California -- Dlgood, 19:36:46 09/11/04 Sat

California State Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger recently signed a bill banning necrophilia, making sex with a corpse a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison.

Finally! An end to the plague of masturbating vampires.

[> Re: Buffy's all right, but Nina? Necrophilia is now illegal in California -- Lace, 09:40:46 09/12/04 Sun

Wouldn't a corpse be something that Subject to decay and decomposition and completely unable to think/move and act under its own accord. Neither Angel or Spike fit that description.
why is it so DIFFUICULT for people to underSTAND what it means for angel to have a soul?? -- ghady, 15:40:33 09/11/04 Sat

Like that guy in That Old Gang of Mine. Gunn's friend. The demon-biggot with an intensely exasperating disposition.
Had Angel been soulless, it would have been expected of the guy to look down upon him in disdain--to treat him like a maniacal, sadistic butcher.
However, having a soul makes Angel EXACTLY like Gunn's friend, with the benefit of being equipped with supernatural abilities. Both have an equal potential of doing good and doing evil, yet, as they are both directed by their conscience to the path of good, they choose to do just that--altruistic acts that serve for the greater good of the human race. I still do not understand why Gunn's friend finds this concept so hard to comprehend: Angel has a soul--he is practically human (remember: practically). The phrase "he's good now" is misleading; there is a clear disticntion between a reformed vampire--a feat that is in itself impossible--and a vampire that has been given a human soul, which is--from an ethical perspective--almost analogous to being turned human.

WHYYYYYYYYY is that so hard for Gunn's friend to swallow???!?!?!?

Replies:

[> Gunn's friends didn't really have much contact with Angel -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:01:23 09/11/04 Sat

Gunn got to see Angel more than the rest of them and how he genuinely didn't kill people and even went out of his way to help. The others got to see a vampire who helped them out on one occasion, and even then he let the vampire clan go away alive. So, just because Angel says he has a soul, and Gunn backs him up, doesn't necessarily make it so in their minds. They don't have much reason to trust Angel, and Gunn was going through emotional troubles at the time, so they didn't trust his judgement either.

[> Re: why is it so DIFFUICULT for people to underSTAND what it means for angel to have a soul?? -- Kana, 01:28:20 09/13/04 Mon

Also bigotry can have its origins from fear. If one were to fight their whole lives to defend themselves from a such a vicious enemy, then i suppose the MO would more or less consist of kill now ask questions later. They then began to have fun doing what they believed to be justified and subsequently lost sight of the 'mission'. Also what George found difficult to comprehend was Gunn's loyalty. He couldn't understand why he was showing loyalty to a vampire after they had spent so long killing them and also seeing the effects of their existence. Even Gunn said that he found it difficult to accept Angel as a friend as he had been fighting along side him for well over a year, so it is hardly suprising that Gunn's friends feel the way they do about Angel. Sometimes the way people feel about people (or demons) is not always bound to logic, it can be affected by a lifetime of negative experience.

[> [> They haven't watched years of BtVS/AtS -- dmw, 09:01:18 09/14/04 Tue

They're not viewers; they're characters. They don't have the advantage of knowing what a soul means in the Buffyverse. If a character is not a spellcaster or vampire with a soul, then they're like you and me, with no ability to observe or measure a soul. We don't even know what a soul is, which is a long way from knowing if one exists and what it does to a person. Sure, some people have faith, but since we're not Willow or Angel, we don't know.
What is the "definitive" Buffy? -- Wizard, 00:59:54 09/12/04 Sun

A really good friend of mine, and fellow Buffy fanatic, has recently befriended a lady who's never watched the show. My friend is thinking of remedying this, and is thinking of doing a 'Buffy' night, showing a selection of the most definitive episodes, which is possible now that six of the seven seasons are on DVD.

This got me to thinking: which episodes constitute the 'definitive' Buffy? What sort of criteria do you look for? Would it be better to show: the major plot episodes for the newbie to get a taste of the overall saga ('Becoming', 'The Gift'), character driven episodes that show the newbie who the Scoobies really are ('The Zeppo,' 'Selfless'), some of the series' many gems to show the newbie what Buffy is at its best ('OMWF,' 'The Body'), or some combination of the above? A similar line of thought is: how many episodes do you show? I realize that this can depend on the circumstances and the patience of the newbie, which are variables in and of themselves.

I turn to you, most wise philosophers, to help answer a question: what episodes make the 'definitive' Buffy?

Replies:

[> Re: What is the "definitive" Buffy? -- Ender, 01:34:21 09/12/04 Sun

My opinion, and this is just my opinion, is that there is no definitive Buffy to show a viewer short of the entire show (including Angel). I think it must be seen as a whole to be understood at its core and get the truest sense of its range- cause it can be so much. But if you re talking about how to get someone hooked, I find it s not showing them particular episodes so much as evalutating who your audience is and finding the episodes that are slanted to their tastes. I m just saying that there are Buffy episodes for any type of person and it s up to the Buff fanatic to read the potential watcher; no rules exist for just what episode or sodes are perfect for conversion. (But if their worth knowing then all it should take is 5 sodes- Surprise, Innocence, Passion, and Becoming 1&2 (unless their crazy But then crazy, so, watch out!))

[> Re: What is the "definitive" Buffy? -- LeeAnn, 05:06:14 09/12/04 Sun

Fool for Love catches a lot of females.

Tabula Rasa is pretty good too.

[> Too much context -- dmw, 08:20:20 09/12/04 Sun

Many of the episodes people have suggested require too much context for a newcomer to appreciate. Season finales are not the place to start. The season 2 Angelus core arc of Surprise, Innocence, and Passion that was suggested might work well though. The Wish and Doppelgangland from season 3 work well together. Hush is an excellent standalone requiring minimal background knowledge to appreciate. The Halloween episodes, Halloween and Fear Itself, are also good and stand by themselves fairly well.

[> My Recommendations: -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:20:59 09/12/04 Sun

I don't know anything about your friend, so how much patience they have is something of an X factor here. However, I think you should try to convince them to watch six episodes, and see what their reaction is after that before doing anything else.

Begin with "Prophecy Girl". The "previously on" at the beginning, combined with some exposition dialouge, fills in pretty much all of the necessary backstory. It has almost everything you could want in a Buffy episode: drama, humor, action, horror, an epic plot, sacrafice, love, and a chance for every character to shine. If you could show someone only one episode to get them interested in Buffy, please, make it this one.

I'd then go with "When She Was Bad". It serves to show one of the most important aspects of the Buffyverse: there are always consequences; things like almost dying don't just go away. Also, it shows that there can be both character growth and episodes that focus more on drama then the monster of the week. Lastly, I know as a fact from when I first got into watching Buffy: people like it when the a show they're getting into references things they know about; it really gives them a sense of getting into the loop.

I would then show your friend "School Hard". It introduces two of the series' coolest villains and is just plain an exciting episode to boot. No, not much of the dramatic episode, but after WSWB, it's good to show that Buffy can also do a plain old fun action ep.

Next "Halloween". By this point we've had three episodes where the villains were all vampires; I think it is important to show that there are other things for Buffy to fight, and Ethan Rayne's army of trick-or-treaters does that well. It also serves to emphasize the humor aspect of Buffy, just as WSWB and "School Hard" emphasized drama and action respectively. Not to mention, it's pretty essential before showing the fifth episode:

"The Dark Age". It gives your friend an insight into Giles and his relationship with Jenny, which there are really only hints of in the other episodes I recommended. Ang, again, being a follow-up to an episode your friend has already seen, it both breeds a sense of familiarity and shows again that there are consequences. Plus, I feel it would be necessary to reinforce the "it's not JUST about vampires" idea considering that the last episode I recommend is . . .

"Lie to Me". This ep has the dark tone and moral ambiguity that would serve Buffy well in many future episodes, and the ending leaves a sense of wanting more (despite not being an actual cliffhanger, your friend should be curious by this point where the characters are going to go). I know I'm recommending you show it out of order, but "Lie to Me" is self-contained enough that that's not really a problem.

Anyways, these are my recommendations for initial episodes to show. However, your friend may not be willing to agree to six episodes, in which case the order in which I think episodes should be cut is: "When She Was Bad", "The Dark Age", "Lie to Me", "Halloween", "School Hard", "Prophecy Girl". I still maintain that "Prophecy Girl" is your best bet, and, as good as WSWB is, it's not truly necessary. Of course, if your friend has different tastes, you might need to alter this order.

Now, let's say you show these to your friend and s/he's interested, but not quite ready to just start watching the series of FX or borrow DVDs from you. Let's say s/he is willing to see a few more episodes. If that happens, there are four more I'd recommend:

"What's My Line?" Parts I and II. It serves as an exciting episode, has an impact on several of the character relationships, introduces Kendra, which serves as yet another reference to an episode your friend has seen, which is always nice, and it really shows us the Spike/Drusilla/Angel triangle, which was only hinted at in "Lie To Me". Not to mention that this episode is fairly essential viewing for my next double hitter . . .

"Surprise" and "Innocence". Whether or not your friend has become a B/A fan by this point, it's inevitable she'll see that they are in love, giving Angel's transformation into Angelus its full impact. It has all the characters in action, plenty of drama, but still with a sprig or two of humor put in. If your friend doesn't want to watch more by the end on "Innocence", if s/he isn't eager to see what happens between Buffy and Angelus, then s/he probably just wasn't cut out to be a Buffy fan.

If, on the other hand, s/he does like what you've shown them, and is dying to see how things play out, then I'd lend him/her your Season 2 DVDs, show him/her where "Phases" is and tell him/her to watch straight through to "Becoming II". After that, your friend will either approach you about borrowing more DVDs (in order) or s/he won't. Either way, by that point, your work is done.

[> [> i've actually been thinking of doing that for both Buffy AND Angel: -- ghady, 12:08:50 09/12/04 Sun

I am somewhat INSANE. So i have no trouble explaining story-arcs to ppl before they see the episode. I use my own previous knowledge, as well as the Buffy/Angel transcripts to make the experience as smooth as possible (i also tend to pause whenever a little reference to a previous ep is made).

So... If it were me (and again, i am INSANE, and i usually FORCE people to watch these shows), i'd choose these:

Buffy:
Prophecy girl (esp for the scene where she throws a tantrum in the library)

School Hard
Lie to Me
Surprise
Innocence
Passion (to me, an INGENIUS episode)
Becoming 1&2

Dead Man's Party: i KNOW that this is a HORRIBLE episode in MANY MANY MANY ways, but the scences in the house where she packs her bags again and then goes down and fights w/ her friends is to DIE for.
The Wish
Amends
Graduation Day 1&2

Fear, Itself
Hush
This Year's Girl
Who Are You?
Restless

No Place Like Home
Fool For Love
Checkpoint
Blood Ties
The Body
Forever (for SMG and MT's acting)
Spiral
The Weight of the World
The Gift

Once More With Feeling
Older and Far Away
Entropy
Seeing Red (i know that the eps from this ep on aren't excellent, but my friend saw seeing red and he was hooked. he wanted to know whats gonna happen next. so he saw villains. again, he wanted to know... so bla bla, he had to see them all)
Villains
Two To Go
Grave


Help
Selfless
Conversations With Dead People
First Date
Storyteller
Lies My Parents Told Me
(i havent seen the rest)

ONLY DO THIS IF YOU'RE MANIACAL, DERANGED, AND OBSESSIVE, LIKE ME. ok?

Oo, as for Angel:
I Will Remember You
Five By Five
Sanctuary
To Shanshu in LA

Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been
Dear Boy
Darla
The Trial
Reunion
Redefinition
Reprise
Epiphany

And ALL of S3 and ALL of S4. In S3, u can skip all the standalones at the beginning, but the rest is CRUCIAL. S4... well, they just CANT see ONE ep and be fullfilled. They CANT.

(i would advise u not to listen to my advice bcs--again--i'm crazy)

[> [> [> Re: i've actually been thinking of doing that for both Buffy AND Angel: -- Kana, 01:09:09 09/13/04 Mon

I began on Season 1 of Buffy but then my interest faded somewhat. Around the middle of season 2 i regained this interest and this is also where many of my friends started also. The are some great stand alone episodes later on, but i found i appreciated the majority of the later episodes due to character establishment in the earlier seasons.

[> [> Re: I think it should be watched from Welcome.... -- Can I Be Anne?, 08:49:57 09/16/04 Thu

I think I have to agree with the poster who said there really isn't a "definitive episode" for the Newbie. Although, Prophecy Girl does come pretty close, I would suggest that anyone who really wants to get invested in the show watch from the very beginning. I think it is imperative to "get" Buffy's character's from Welcome to the Hell mouth. It is my experience, that by the time the new viewer gets to Angel, they are beyond hooked anyway, and want to watch all the eppy. In Angel, the new viewer pretty much gets the gist of the "story" and is also set up for future Angel watchage. Every time rewatch the first season of Buffy, I get more out of it, and I know pretty much of the eppy by heart! It is such a richly layered show, with amazing characters, amazing writers and directors, and of course, then there s Joss. Yup, gotta say - Go for the Gold and watch from the get-go! I remember being moved the moment Buffy befriends Willow, and then hooked when Buffy swoops down from the pole, upside down, on Angel in the alley! God, I love this show!

[> "Definitive" with regard to how many episodes? 1? 10? -- frisby, 11:40:37 09/12/04 Sun

I think the question can be answered, but only if the number of episodes is given first, whether one, ten, or twenty. If one, I'd go with "Prophecy Girl" but only if the "previously" is included.

Overall, for one episode to represent the entire series, I'd go with "Chosen" or perhaps a more of a stand-a-alone like "Anne" (3.1)

[> Instant addiction... -- Duell, 09:32:08 09/13/04 Mon

I have, over the course of the last few years been one of the main supporters of the Buffy phenomenon in my particular tri-town area, and I find that if you want to get someone addicted to Buffy, the best thing to do is give them a little of season two. My personal choices:

'School Hard,' 'Lie to Me,' 'Surprise,' 'Innocence,' 'Passion,' and 'I Only Have Eyes For You.'

After watching these eps, the viewer or viewers will have one of two reactions: a) they love the show and want to see the rest of the story to fill in some gaps, or b) they are vehemently opposed to the show in which case they went into it with a closed mind and refused to look for anything enjoyable in it. I stand in judgement on person (b).

[> [> OTOH. . . . -- Briar Rose, 17:28:31 09/13/04 Mon

I really think it depends on the psychology of the person you are trying to explain and demonstrate it to:

Are they into sci-fi already? Then you really need to take them by the hand and start with season one, episode one. Also give them little peeks ahead, at what is to come, by describing following themes and arcs... But always as they come into play with what you are watching. I'm doing this with my SO and he's getting into it now that we're almost through season one. The mythology and canon coming in close to real time in viewing it one or two eps at a time from ep one, are helping him experience it exactly as it unfolded for me and everyone else. He'd already been a huge fan of sci-fi, everything from Trek to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the Bat Man graphics, including "Dark Knight." He understands and appreciates "Universe" and seeing it this way makes it more meaningful to him.

If you are dealing with someone who is more into the technical details of a show/film, then definitely go for the outstanding episodes (not in order), such as Once More with Feeling, Hush, Graduation Day and Earshot, Nightmares, The Body and Shadowmen.

And if you are dealing with someone who is into heavy dramatics, then you're best going with those episodes that contain the turning points: Prophecy Girl, Bad Girls, Becoming, Smashed, The Body and the other more dramatic moments in BtVS.

Lastly, we come to those that will never get it. My advise is that anyone who watches sit-coms won't get Buffy anyway, so why waste one's time? It's okay not to like Buffy. But then you know who to spend deep conversations with and who to stick to weather, fashion and inane commentary on reality shows. We all need a wide array of friends for different moods.

But as to how much time to devote? I really think that no more than three episodes at a time is the only way to go. For one thing, if they are getting into it, they will WANT to see more later. If they aren't, then you haven't dominated too much of their time and set up a control issue that will make them reject it even more, as a reaction to your over dominance in the matter.

[> [> [> As a sitcom watcher, I take offense at that -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:07:19 09/13/04 Mon

Why does liking situation comedies make someone incapable of "getting" Buffy?

[> [> [> [> Ditto!! -- DorianQ, 20:45:19 09/14/04 Tue


[> [> [> HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY! -- Duell, 19:47:01 09/13/04 Mon

In response to the following:

"My advise is that anyone who watches sit-coms won't get Buffy anyway, so why waste one's time?"

I happen to enjoy sitcoms and devour them on a regular basis. That is rampantly unfair conjecture. I loved every episode of 'Friends,' 'Seinfeld,' 'Cheers,' 'Just Shoot Me' and 'Frasier' that I saw (okay, I'm being exaggerative but you get the point), and I'm anxiously waiting for new seasons of 'Will & Grace' and 'Joey' (NBC is my friend). Don't knock the sitcoms. They rock. But I also happen to enjoy shows like 'Buffy,' 'Angel,' and 'Smallville' (probably the best show left on the air after the demise of 'BtVS' and 'AtS' and 'Friends').

[> [> [> My. That generalization is sweeping... -- Dlgood, 19:49:25 09/13/04 Mon

Lastly, we come to those that will never get it. My advise is that anyone who watches sit-coms won't get Buffy anyway, so why waste one's time?

For future reference, Briar Rose, you might want to be a bit more careful about that sort of thing. I watched sitcoms like "Cheers", "Seinfeld", "Sports Night", "That 70's Shows", "Scrubs", "Arrested Development" and many others. I've also watched BtVS and Angel. I also watch Sporting events.

The audience isn't monolithic. Don't speak for it as though it were unless you can provide some statistical data or evidence to back those assumptions up.

[> [> [> you...you...you...*sitcom bigot*!!! -- anom, 09:16:46 09/14/04 Tue

I've been watching sitcoms most of my life, starting w/I Love Lucy & The Dick van Dyke Show. Some sitcoms have very intelligent writing & complex characters (some of my favorites: Murphy Brown, Frank's Place, Newsradio). I'm not really into any current sitcoms, but pickings are slimmer in these days of rampant "reality" shows. Still, I like to think I "get" Buffy. Maybe not the same way you do, but that's what makes this board interesting. And remember, some of us on the board are into cartoons--where do those fit in your prejudice hierarchy?

[> [> [> [> heeheeheeheehee Geez, it's a tongue in cheek thing, lighten up.;) -- Briar Rose, 20:21:59 09/14/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> geez, i was playing along -- anom, 22:52:38 09/14/04 Tue

Hence the dot-dot-dots & the asterisk emphasis. Do you really think anyone would say that & be serious about it?

[> [> [> [> [> [> I knew you were anom.:) I figured everyone was. Just incase the PC police found it offensive...LOL -- Briar Rose, 16:17:13 09/15/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> Ahh, *Frank's Place*. Now that's a series that needs to show up on DVD. -- OnM, 07:03:15 09/15/04 Wed

BTW, anyone else out there watching *Father of the Pride*?

[> [> [> [> [> FotP: Yeah, I'm watching, but I feel embarrassed to admit it. -- cjl, 11:00:55 09/15/04 Wed

The family portions (with John Goodman's Larry the Lion at home with the wife and kiddies) are boilerplate sitcom and cliched beyond all belief. I can barely keep my eyes open. (Carl Reiner is great as Larry's father-in-law, but he can only do so much.)

The sequences with Siegfried and Roy are truly bizarre. Even though the light mockery of S&R as eccentric, Teutonic twits seems tasteless in the light of Roy's horrible injury, the material still works in the "hip, ironic" fashion so popular with the kids these days. If the entire series was pitched at this level of lunacy, it would be perfect for Adult Swim on Cartoon Network.

Advice for the producers? If the show gets renewed, scale back the talking animules, center the series around S&R, and expand the scope of the series to feature Vegas as a kind of decadent, glitterball version of the United States as a whole. That way, you have more opportunities for satire and a chance to pull in the adult audience you're (supposedly) trying to attract.

[> [> [> [> [> I'm with cjl. But at least it's animated. -- Briar Rose, 16:18:36 09/15/04 Wed

Hobbits and the New Fall Shows -- an old one, 15:09:04 09/12/04 Sun

So, according to Herc at AICN, ABC's pilot for Lost gets five out of five stars.

There's precious little else to look forward to on the tube these days, so I'll give it a go. Premieres Wednesday, September 22 at 8 pm Eastern and Pacific, 7 pm Central.

As mentioned below, there's involvement of one David Fury (ptui, we will speak of him no more!).

But also, there's a Hobbit in it, Merry Brandybuck, played by Dominic Monaghan. Now, a few years back I used to watch a Brit mystery series called Hetty Wainthrop Investigates, and Dominic Monaghan played the young sidekick to the aging sleuth of the title. He was kind of a goofy (looking and acting) kid, but quite endearing in a funny way. I was glad when he showed up in the Fellowship of the Ring, 'cuz it seemed like quite a coup for a basically unknown young English actor.

In investigating Lost I have been unavoidably bombarded by the Dom Fan Community. OMG, this kid is loved by millions, and I mean in the Biblical sense! What gives? He's hardly the romantic leading man type.

Okay, yeah, I'm old, but what am I missing here?

And are he and Billy Boyd really a couple? Or is that slash?

Help me out...

dub ;o)

Replies:

[> Re: Hobbits and the New Fall Shows -- LadyStarlight, 17:56:41 09/12/04 Sun

I think that the Dom/Billy thing is just slash. I'm too scared to do more than dip my baby toe into either LotR or LotRIPS (Real Person Slash) fandoms. (shudders)

Very scary places.

[> Re: Hobbits and the New Fall Shows -- LittleBit, 14:25:41 09/13/04 Mon

And are he and Billy Boyd really a couple?

Not to hear the Domlijah (Dominic/Elijah Wood) fans talk about him. My own opinion? It's slash. So far there's been no more basis for any of the insistent (incessant?) rumors about any of the LotR slash favorites than "OMG!!one!11!11 They were promoting a movie about guys who bond as a group!!" (Only usually somewhat less coherent). Oh, and the actors' flat denial on more than one occasion. ;)

[> Re: Hobbits and the New Fall Shows -- mamcu, 13:37:19 09/16/04 Thu

Thanks so much, Dub! I knew I'd seen Merry somewhere before, but had forgotten Hetty. That's been somewhere on my list of things to wonder about for a long time.
Season 4 AtS -- heywhynot, 15:57:29 09/12/04 Sun

Anyone else watching season 4 of Angel on DVD? Having a great time going back. Boy is it fun watching/hearing Cordy return without memories talking about being back on earth after so long, needing to readjust to having a physical form. Takes on a whole new meaning knowing Cordy was under the control of Jasmine, a higher power who used to walk on earth and left to a higher plane. Plus then watching Cordy planting the seeds of dissent between the Fang Gang, her touches of Connor in the presence of Angel, getting Angel to become Angelus, knowing Angelus would work on the insecurities of each member of the team.

Given the talk of Lorne's inabilities in season 5, it is interesting he wasn't reading things well in season 4. MIssed Cordy being pregnant and not herself. Messing up Angelus for Angel. Was it ever explored just what sort of damage WRH inflicted upon him by taking out Cordy's memories?

Replies:

[> Re: Season 4 AtS -- D rock, 19:41:49 09/12/04 Sun

I only watched it when it was originally broadcasted but s 4 was one of the best yearly arcs they did for either series IMO. It was really great. Right now I am watching the whole series, buffy and angel, with my gal, introducing her to the series. At this point we are in the early part of btvs s4 and ats s1 and I am looking forward to getting to ats s4 and btvs7.

~ D

[> [> Best season of Angel as far as story arc is concerned IMO -- Kana, 01:03:08 09/13/04 Mon


[> [> [> Best season of ANY show IMO. -- ghady, 03:49:33 09/13/04 Mon


[> [> [> [> Amen! -- Haunt, 05:12:58 09/15/04 Wed

I'm a staunch defender of S4, and it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one out there that thinks it's the best season of either series. Rewatching on DVD right now and it only serves to strengthen that opinion seeing them all back to back, with no sweeps/hiatus scheduling nonsense messing it up.

[> [> [> [> [> that's right! how could ANYONE DARE to deem AS4 as inferior.. LOL.. -- ghady, 11:39:29 09/17/04 Fri


[> Re: Season 4 AtS -- Vickie, 09:53:05 09/13/04 Mon

I'm a long way behind you in watching season four; I just finished Habeas Corpses. I agree, incredible television.

I think I most enjoyed rewatching the physical comedy of Spin the Bottle. AD is absolutely hilarious as a 17-year-old nerdy head boy with delusions of leadership. When he bent over to check his ankles for more hidden weapons, I practically fell on the floor.

I'm especially looking forward to seeing Inside Out, which I've NEVER seen (VCR glitch). I've heard about Skip's explanation of the "turgid supernatural soap opera," But I've never seen the episode.

Fun, fun, fun!
University -- David, 12:56:54 09/13/04 Mon

Hi i'm starting university this week and was wondering if anyone else was (or already started). Has anyone got any tips for me about starting which would be cool:)

Replies:

[> Re: University -- Rook, 13:09:31 09/13/04 Mon

Three words:

Moderation, moderation, moderation.

Ok, that's one word three times, but you get the point.

[> [> Re: University -- skpe, 13:51:55 09/13/04 Mon

Find a study group in your major. It will get you plugged into the grapevine so you know what Profs. to seek out and what ones to avoide. These groups are sometimes posted in the student union building some times you have to join a frat to find one. I assume you are in a dorm, (bet it doesn t look anything like btvs S4 dorm) you can also ask around there.

[> [> [> Re: University.. me too! -- ghady, 15:26:46 09/13/04 Mon

Yea I m starting at AUB (American University of Beirut) on the 27th of September.. I m really excited.. I m a biology major (sophomore).. what are YOU??
people have been telling me not to get caught up in university life.. you know, all the politics and shit.. and apparently, you have to choose your friends wisely and know who to trust, because--especially in REALLY competitive majors--people tend to be backstabbing liars who only care about getting the highest grade possible at ANY cost. And I mean ANY cost.
that's all the wisdom I can impart.

[> [> [> [> Re: University.. me too! -- David, 12:03:02 09/15/04 Wed

Cool i hope you have fun, i'm doing international studies but i'm gonna live at home for the first year because of money:( but still want a good time

[> [> [> [> [> i'm gonna live at home too cuz the uni is REALLY close to our place. it would be a waste of money. -- ghady, 04:02:21 09/16/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> i had a roommate from lebanon (& on living at home while going to college) -- anom, 23:42:48 09/27/04 Mon

My ex-roomie is Armenian. Her family left Lebanon when she started having nightmares about being kidnapped during the violence that was going on in the late '70s/early '80s. Ghady, I'm glad university politics is the main kind you need to worry about--things must've gotten a lot better in Beirut since those days.

I lived at home while I went to college; it was a 15- or 20-minute drive. One thing I found was that it was harder to maintain a social life living off campus, mostly because I had to go to university events rather than just walking outside & being there. It was more than just having to make the trip; it was a different mindset. Maybe if I'd had more late classes....

[> Advice for University -- frisby, 16:22:42 09/13/04 Mon

I've been a university student for over three decades. My advice is to take a course on how to study, another on listening, and maybe one on sexuality and/or campus life. I earned degrees in philosophy, psychology, history, and informatics; of those philosophy has by far proved the most useful and interesting and especially edifying. Last, my advice is to do what I did, which is to marshal your courage and guts and knock on the office doors of the faculty you learn about who are good teachers and/or scholars; introduce yourself and your aims and consider enrolling in one of their courses. That worked very well for me -- I also befriended some of them. Good luck and remember that the people exist for the sake of the city which exists for the sake of the universal-city (or the university) which exists for the sake of the scholar (or philosopher) -- or is it the other way around?

[> Re: University -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 22:56:29 09/23/04 Thu

As someone over twenty years OUT of university:

1.) You'll make mistakes, both academic and personal. Try to avoid them, but don't fret about them. Everyone does make mistakes. Forgive yourself.

2.) Avoid mistakes that you CAN'T correct. These include, but are not limited to, grievous bodily injury, inadvertent reproduction, prison time, and tattoos.

3.) Enjoy yourself and grow socially -- but don't forget that you need to learn -- and to learn how to learn. The latter will enable you to continue to educate yourself for the rest of your life. The "facts" you learn in college will almost certainly change -- knowing how to teach yourself continues. Learning how to learn may include practice in critical thinking -- something lots of college graduates seem to have been able to avoid.

4.) You are privileged. I'd guess that fewer than one in twenty people on the planet have the chance at a college education. Enjoy yourself -- but remember to learn.

5.) When you take photos -- write the names and times on the back with a felt marker. Twenty years later you'll want to know who these people were who were so important to you -- and you might not remember their names.

I speak from experience.
You're all going to kill me after I say this but.... -- Kana, 05:46:27 09/13/04 Mon

I had recently had the pleasure of watching season 5 of Angel for the first time and I have to say I was satified with the way it ended. I realise there still a few die-hard fans, whom I would be remiss to mention, who wish to continue the campaign to air a sixth season, but i feel there is nothing more to say. I applaude the fact that Joss didn't tie up the loose ends such as whether or not they did win the day and also how he refused to resolve the 'Shanshu' conundrum. It was slightly over established in some parts of the episode 'Not Fade Away' but it made the point effectively however that it is not the winning that is important, it was about refusing to accept the prevalence of evil which i thought was a powerful statement and really returned to what the show was about in the first place without allowing symmetry to cause the narrative to seem forced.

I was a little sad to see Wesley go though, but I must say this is hardly a slight against the writers, it's just that Wes was one of my favourite characters but I admired the grace in which they allowed him to leave, portraying him as only as a very human character but also as a worthy champion. Lindsay's downfall was also very interesting to watch...although he was human, Angel recognises him as part of the problem, one that has to be dealt with before the greater fight, but I did feel for Lorne as he was the one who had to do it, you knew that it was the last straw for him and it only confirmed to him that he felt that this wasn't his place anymore, a descision in which I felt he was entirely justified. He had definately done his part, even if he no longer sees himself as a champion, a champion he will remain in my opinion.

Anyway I've rambled on for too long really, i just wanted to say i was satisfied with how it played out but i'm still curious to see how the season 6 project goes, although i don't envy the writer who has to write the first episode.

Also, i know i've asked this before but i can't remember the reply. I just wanted to know if season 6 is going to be in Transcript form like the ones we see on buffyworld or if it just going to be written like a collection of short fan fics?

Replies:

[> Re: You're all going to kill me after I say this but.... -- CW, 07:42:11 09/13/04 Mon

I think the plan is something similar to script form with plenty of stage settings and directions to make things easier to visualize.

[> No need for death, I felt much the same way... -- Vegeta, 09:36:29 09/13/04 Mon


[> Re: Nah, not gonna kill you, but....... -- Can I Be Anne?, 09:46:34 09/13/04 Mon

See, I cannot agree with you at all. I feel the ending of S5 of Angel was a total cop-out. I would much rather have seen Joss tie up the loose ends, while still leaving room to continue his story with these characters. The way he did with Buffy. Fade Away was totally depressing, and left no room for doubt as to the final battle, they lost. I don't see any of these characters "running away", and yet I don't see how they, tiny band of warriors all, could have possibly won the day. Of course, in my fantasy ending, Buffy and all the new slayers swoop down in the end and aid the Angel warriors in the battle. Not to totally defeat evil, but to hold it at bay yet again.

The way Angel ended, was more or less a "win" in my eyes for the bad guys. Taking out Lindsey wasn't going to make a dent in the defeat of W&H or the evil behind them. And Angel willingly leading his troops into a suicide battle was not my ideal way of seeing my beloved Angel go out. It simply felt as if Angel gave it up - that the fight to win was out of him, and he was ready to let it go. But the only way to do that, for Angel, was to die trying. And, I for one, totally wanted to see the Shanshu Prophecy addressed, if not resolved. The ending of Angel left me totally depressed and grieving for the Verse. Buffy's Chosen left me missing the show, but totally joyful in the fact that Buffy finally might be able to see the light of day!

As a personal choice, I won't be visiting Angel S5 again. I disliked most of the season, especially the Spike storyline. Yes, there were wonderful "moments" to S5, but for the most part, I found it a total disappointment. I wanted more for Angel. In my opinion Buffy went out in a blaze of victory and glory. Angel went out defeated.

Oh well, I'll always have Sunnydale!

[> [> I was expecting more of these types of repsonses actually. -- Kana, 11:11:10 09/13/04 Mon

But the point is where do you end it? Angel has always been darker than Buffy and the end certainly stayed with that. I felt it worked well in juxtaposition with the ending of Buffy. If it had ended in a similar way it wouldn't show how far Ats has come.

It is more than likely that they did perish but it does not say for certain whether they do or not but i felt that wasn't really the statement: Whether they won or not, but whether they continued fighting no matter what the odds were, which is a statement for all champions. If we are optimistic that the Shanshu prophecy will be forfilled then that is grounds to believe that Spike or Angel may survive and Illyria can hold her own so, looking past the immediate predicament(understatment of the millennium) then we do get a feint glimmer of hope in an otherwise dark wolrd where evil is prevelant

[> [> [> Re: I was expecting more of these types of repsonses actually. -- Can I Be Anne?, 12:55:24 09/13/04 Mon

I don't know how I would have handled the ending of Angel. All I know is that I was not happy with the way it did end, but you see, I was not really happy with Angel after S2. I felt the development of Angel as a character, lost its impact by the time the writers started playing with the Cordy/Angel relationship. There was a leap forward with the Darla/Connor angle, but the writers really screwed that storyline up. By the end, the main character for me was Wesley. It was this character that truly metamorphosed. Not in a good way mind you, but Wesley s decent into insanity was brilliant to behold. In the interim, Angel's character simply lost resonance for me. By the time Mutant Enemy dropped Spike into the mix, I felt it was just too little too late. The story wasn't working by the end of S4 and certainly lost all momentum in S5. The choices that were made, story wise, were "easy" fixes. The character of Spike returning as a ghost, going the entire season without trying to find Buffy, after the awesome ending to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Spike s regression of character, turning him into Lucy s Ethel, it was pitiful. And Angel, lord he went through most of S5 like a petulant child. The writers seemed to have given up on Angel and it showed in the way DB portrayed the character. He was no longer a Hero or a campion in my eyes. Simply someone who was tired of fighting the good fight and decided to throw in the towel, which would have been fine for Angel to end that way actually, but by taking Spike and Wesley and Gunn with him...sorry, but that just seemed completely selfish to me. And by leaving the killing of Lindsey to Lorne, well he may just as well killed Lorne on the spot, since killing Lindsey took Lorne s very soul. And then of course there was Eve.

In my eyes Angel went out the fool, not the hero. And I feel terrible about it, but that is how I see it. If you look closely at S5 of Angel, you will see rehashed Buffy scripts - I don't think there was an iota of original thought in the entire season. The constant mentions of Buffy Buffy Buffy...it was like they were trying to get back to the "glory days", but couldn't pull it off. The only episode that neared greatness was Damage, and that was all about....A Slayer.

[> [> [> [> It wasn't amazing but it was the end -- Alistair, 10:48:42 09/15/04 Wed

In watching "Not Fade Away", I was comparing it to "Choices"- which was an amazing episode to end an amazing series. "Not Fade Away" seems to have been different. It didn't do much for tying up character development, and not enough to show the exremity of Angel's actions against the circle of the black thorn. The circle needed to be represented as something more powerful, less action, more story. The end, the point, the essense of the series rings true in it. The characters have nothing left except their fight against evil and the Wolf Ram and Hart. The point remains that whether they survive the final fight or die, they fought and the circle was destroyed. It would have meant more if the circle had been there from earlier on, not just two episodes. All this time Angel fought W&H while it was the circle running their machine. A cop out, obviously, but it could have been handled much better.
Is the sun "really" a star? -- David Frisby, 16:27:58 09/13/04 Mon

Is the sun "really" a star? Who first realized this?

My interest in this matter goes to Zarathustra's first words "Thou great star!" which he addresses to the sun, showing he is a modern man (or human).

But more importantly, of all the people to ever gaze into the sky during the day or night, of "all" of them "ever" how many or what percent realized the sun "is" a star?

The answer is very very very few (not even Newton or Galileo). As for who was first, I think it's Herschel in combination with his younger sister but I'm not 100% yet. I really wonder if perhaps some ancient thinker at least pondered the possibility?????

As for the galactic year (250 million earth years), what if there are something comparable to seasons???

This stuff is important! But of course, for most people, it doesn't really mean squat to know the sun will die in a few billion years, burning the earth to a crisp in so doing. Practically, the only concern is whether its light and warm or not. But for us 'theoretical' types it matters a great great great deal to know the sun is only a star, not radically different than any of the other billion billion stars in the heavens.

As for the discovery of the galaxy, and our place in it, and the other galaxies, etc., well that's just plain mind-blowing, and hardly anyone alive today even dares to really think about it.

Like Nietzsche said (who "did" know the sun was a star), imagine some observer standing on a star far away watching the earth in some way. They see a little light flash on and then go off and they say, hmmm, well, that was humanity. We are but a blip, the planet is but a speck of dust (unless like Kant you think the moral law within raises our dignity far above anything in the heavens, or even above the heavens themselves)...

How can humanity continue realizing their entire existence is but an instant and the planet itself but a speck of dust???????

how? how? how? how?

what is the cure for what Nietzsche called nihilism?

[I reposted this from the long thread about cjl and "Scientific American" being called by the show from the comedy show -- at the suggestion of anom]

frisby

Replies:

[> Well, I suggest faith. -- BrianWilly, 17:24:53 09/13/04 Mon

Aka...believing without any ultimate proof that there is more to humanity than a random biological speck in the universe. Organized faith becomes religion, which one might say is mankind's weapon against nihilism.

Under this strategy, many people have become profoundly happy in and of themselves.

Really.

I've read about them;).

That's the easy way out, of course. The harder way would be to philosophically prove that life is ultimately worth living. But that's such a bother. Why not just fool yourself into thinking that someday you will be one with your Buddha Nature and ascend all worries and trappings of the mortal coil?

[> [> Who cares whether we're a blip or not? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:02:13 09/13/04 Mon

All that really matters is being happy. Everything that everyone does (searching for a higher power, doing good deeds, all of that) is done because it makes them feel good inside. So we're a blip, who cares? I really don't care what some astronomer on another planet or a mystical being floating through the cosmos think, so long as they don't bother me. The things I care about are all on this little blip we call Earth, and nothing else really matters.

Besides, I wouldn't want to be part of some grand plan anyway. Do you realize how much pressure that would put on me, not to mention the fact that it implies some force out there is using us for some mysterious plan, which I frankly find quite disturbing.

[> [> [> Does it really matter? -- Duell, 20:07:15 09/13/04 Mon

I was once talking to one of my professors about his father's experience as a soldier in WWII and he said that whenever he asked his dad how he managed to continue to fight when he was in battle, his father would very calmly, quietly look at him and say, "You just have to accept that you're not going to live." Or as Tyler Durden said, "First you have to know, not fear, know that someday you're going to die."

That may be one of the most profound statements on how to approach life that I've ever heard. Some more of my favorites:

"Don't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive"- Van Wilder
"The mayfly only lives one day, and sometimes it rains."- George Carlin
and, my favorite...
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."- Angel

Seriously, does it matter if we only have a short time on this earth? Because there's not anything we can do to change it, so why not just do what we can to enjoy life and help others do the same? Besides, you all know that if Shirley MacLaine dies, we all cease to exist anyhow, right?

[> [> [> [> Gravity makes matter -- or visa versa? -- frisby, 13:24:42 09/17/04 Fri

Life revealed her secret to Zarathustra (2.12): all that lives obeys; whatever does not obey itself shall be commanded; and third and last and hardest to know of all, commanding is harder than obeying.

Does the falling rock obey gravity against its will or is the falling rock on the contrary not falling at all but propelling itself with all its strength in the same direction gravity desires? Ultimately, does our will clash or not with time's desire (the desire that we pass into the past and freeze up never to change again)?

[> [> [> [> What happens at death ... -- frisby, 07:03:56 10/06/04 Wed

When we die we become what we've been, all that we've been; we become our very lifetime. But whether this is heaven or hell depends on what we do NOW ...

[> [> [> Happiness or Virtue? -- frisby, 13:19:33 09/17/04 Fri

A classical education is summed up with the story of Hercules coming to a fork in the road and having to decide between the way of happiness (pleasure or feeling good) or the way of virtue (duty or doing good) -- he took the latter.

Plato says if one is to be truly happy they must be not only noble (or beautiful), strong, and wealthy, but also healthy; or one can be virtuous (meaning moderate, courageous, wise, and just).

Nietzsche contrasts the superman (or overman or ubermensch) with the ultimate man (or last man), with the former living for virtue and the latter for mere happiness. The last man thinks of himself as free and wise, and then blinks at the universe, and adds 'happy' -- the superman is another story altogether.

Yes, one must be very "hard" (meaning possessing integrity) indeed to bear that 'pressure' you mention. As for the mysterious plan of which we are a part, I refer to part 3.4 of Zarathustra, where Lord Chance denies any big rational plan to all (just a seed here and there).

Overall, I'm not sure either happiness or freedom are all that big a matter when it comes to life itself. Suffering and destiny are also important, maybe more so.

But of course, if it makes you happy, just ignore this (said tongue in cheek with no malice intended)!

[> [> [> [> People only do duty and virtue because it makes them feel happy -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:18:06 09/17/04 Fri

If someone does a really good thing, they feel good about themselves afterwards; that's really just a different sort of pleasure.

[> [> [> [> [> but those sunglasses "can" be removed -- frisby, 04:53:00 09/18/04 Sat

I agree that one can put on "pleasure sunglasses" so as to see all behavior motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, just as others put on "self-interest sunglasses" and again see everything through 'that' tint, but (or so Plato argues in his _Laws_) those pleasure/pain orientations can be transformed, through shame and honor, into virtue/vice, and as for self-interest, every parent and especially mothers know something about natural philanthropy (regardless of Dawkins' notion of the selfish gene), and, there are other types of sunglasses also, but, and I emphasize 'this' but, one can choose to use pleasure as the criterion of good, and when they do (according to the classics such as Epicurus, but also others, including I think the recent Leo Strauss), then "PHILOSOPHY" becomes the highest pleasure, ruling all of one's thought and life. Philosophy is not only humanity's highest interest, it also (according to Descartes, and Nietzsche who quotes Descartes on this) provides the most intense satisfaction.

Convinced?

[> [> [> [> [> [> You're not really making any sense, sorry -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:27:45 09/18/04 Sat

Also, just because some guy said it doesn't make it so, regardless of whether lots of people agree with their philosophy or not.

The part of your essay I can understand, though, I can refute: even people who believe in selflessness certainly believe that pleasure does exist and that it can motivate people. Well, if they recognize the existence of pleasure, then how can they not see that doing what they believe is right either gives them pleasure or at least spares them pain? As for "natural philantrophy", just because the pleasure/pain is given as a result of a natural compulsion doesn't make it less valid.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> what 'does' "make it so"? pleasure? -- frisby, 04:38:08 09/20/04 Mon

Of course something isn't "made so" just because someone said it; for example, force is still the product of mass and acceleration regardless of the fact that Newton said it was so.

As for pleasure/pain being the bottom line -- well that's a very old story in the history of philosophy, and I simply presented a few of the highlights (Plato's _Laws_ for example) and some interesting twists (Descartes's fourth maxim for example). The story of Hercules taking the path of virtue instead of pleasure/pain illustrates the age of this classic traditional philosophical problem, i.e., it's nothing new (read Antiphon).

Last, I assume from your response that you would subsume logic under rhetoric? and consider demonstrations a mere type of persuasion?

No offence is intended in any of this of course -- as I indicated, according to some esoteric philosophers 'pleasure' is indeed the criterion for conduct, but that's a secret and shouldn't be published too widely because the 'pleasure' of some is deadly to others. As Descartes said at the end of part five of his Discourse, most people (he called them weak minds) need the road of virtue to lead them -- the road of pleasure makes them think they're no better than ants of flys, which although perhaps true, is not politically prudent.

Then again, Nietzsche thinks the time has come for the truth to be indeed made public (natural history and all that), and if we're not fit as a species to live with it, maybe it is time for us to go.

What do you think? personally and politically?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll give it a try: -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:53:25 10/02/04 Sat

I have to be quite honest: a fair percentage of what you right goes right over my head. In this particular post I only understood about half of what you were trying to say, and I've got a feeling that trying to reply to the other half would only complicate matters, so I'll just reply to the part I understood:

For me, the idea of all behavior being motivated by pleasure came about because my parents kept dragging me to church each Sunday. At the beginning of each service the preacher and the congregation would take turns saying "God is good all the time" and "All the time, God is good".

The whole idea of an all good deity got me to thinking: weren't Martin Luther King Jr. and the head of the KKK both Christians? Since the two obviously have very different moral views, would it actually be possible for one deity to be "all good" by both of their definitions? I decided that it wasn't possible unless God was a being so unfathomable that using words like "good" or "love" in conjunction with it would be meaningless. Then arose the quandry: which person, then, would God side with, King or the KKK guy? My moral bent naturally went towards believing God would side with the guy who wasn't a horrible racist, but then something occured to me: if it was possible for a member of the Ku Klux Klan to go through life believing that God approved of their actions when he actually didn't, then wasn't it also possible for any of us to do the same thing? Seemed all too possible.

Eventually I came to share my musings with someone else, a Christian, who refuted that God was the standard for everything that was good, and that we human beings were just trying (and often failing) to reach it. This got me thinking about something I never had before: were right and wrong something outside of me, some fixed, cosmic scale of morality, or were all these concepts of good and evil just something people decided on for themselves, such as the various standards of what's beautiful and what's ugly? At that point I was ambivalent about whether or not God existed, and in what form, but I realize that, if he did exist, and if he did have his own standards of morality that could be contrary to my own, that wouldn't change how I would feel. If God believed I should beat some old guy to death simply for not attending church, I knew I still wouldn't want to do it and would view it as wrong regardless of what some deity told me. Thus I ended up at the conclusion that deciding what is right and wrong is a decision that each human being has to make.

So, there I am, putting a lot of thought into morality when I never had before, and one thing I really had to think about was: what do I believe is moral and immoral? I tried going with what seemed most logical and sensible, a lot of stuff involving the "harm ye none, do what ye will" principle I had picked up on line. But then along came an opportunity to volunteer at this place, my parents dragged me along, and guess what? I didn't like it. I was helping ship food off to poor people, but I didn't feel any joy come from it; I felt no pleasure at the thought that I was helping someone. I knew I could feel that sensation (I'd helped people before, but only in little ways), but that volunteer activity, which should have been one of the best things I'd ever done, gave me nothing. I didn't volunteer again, because for some reason I didn't get any pleasure from doing that good deed, but some other small ones (giving people a few extra dollars for something, waving the traffic along when I came to a crowded intersection) did make me feel kinda good, so I continued to do those. The situation only became more apparent when I'd hear about how my not donating a small amount of money I could spare let children in Africa starve, but I only felt the tiniest flicker of guilt, while I knew from experience that if I saw someone in pain in front of me, I'd feel horrible if I tried not to help. This all lead to yet another realization: what I had determined made logical moral sense wasn't always what my feelings told me, and that I inevitably end up going where my feelings dictated. I knew I wasn't the only one either (my parents for example, who very much believed in giving to the less fortunate, didn't seem to feel guilty over buying a bigger TV, even though the money spent on that could have been given to a homeless family to buy food with). It became readily apparent that I only felt compelled to help someone if I felt good about doing it or at least expected to feel good. Believing intellectually that it was the right thing did little to affect my feelings of satisfaction and/or guilt. From there you can see how I arrived at the whole morality-is-another-form-of-pleasure thing.

Now, you mention that some philosophers who share my belief thought that the general public would be done more harm than good by being taught that right and wrong were just pleasure impulses. That I'm not sure of; my grasp of how the majority of people feel about things has sometimes been woefully off. I do know, however, that the train of thought I went through above lead to a pretty happy time for me. I was no longer bothered about having to live up to some ideal I could never reach. I would simply follow my gut, see what makes me feel good and do it, and see what makes me feel bad and not do it. I was much more at peace after finally accepting that there's no big, grand scheme in life and that all that really matters is finding what makes me happiest. If there was something more, some big meaning to life I had to find, or some external code of conduct I had to obey, I think I'd be a lot more stressed worrying about it. Under my current philosophy, I'm much more content.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll try back ... -- frisby, 11:11:30 10/04/04 Mon

There's too much in your post to reply to properly, so I'll just hit and touch here and there.

Plato's _Laws_ is simply crucial. It is argued there that the 'natural' position is for behavior to be ruled by pleasure/pain (desire for pleasure and fear of pain). BUT, through the use of honor and shame (meaning praise and blame, fame and infamy, reputation, recognition, etc), children can be taught to fear pleasure (calling it moderation) and to desire pain (calling it courage). The natural position is reversed and natural man becomes civilized. For example, soldiers fear dishonor so much they will courageously make war (desiring pain in the eyes of the natural man). Behaviors that natural man finds pleasurable (such as sex in public) the newly civilized man (or human -- sorry) now finds shameful, and fears it calling it bad. Sounds sick huh?

Those who openly claim to base conduct on pleasure and pain were made out to be beasts, lacking humanity. The new ideal was to have and secure your vision of the good, a new north star in the ethical world, and to regulate all actions with your moral compass. Duty becomes the key word, and doing your duty well requires that mysterious thing called virtue. (Of course Nietzsche is not fooled and states directly that all virtues grow out of passions, even if some of them think of themselves as having nothing to do with passion later).

As for the beneficience of God, my position runs like this. At the highest level, the question becomes for the philosophers 'what is god' and for the theologians 'is god' -- and the philosophers insist there question has priority and god's existence can not be determined even hypothetically unless we first know what god is or what we mean by the word and sound 'god' -- but the theologians argue back that god 'does' exist and dwells in myst and we will never know 'what' god is but can nevertheless know he/she/it is. General people of religion, especially these days, come to the dilemma with the question 'who is god' because they understand and only want to understand what they have a personal relation with, and they consign the questions of what and whether to the clouds. Finally, people like Shestov and Tolstoy assume the 'who' but diverge on whether we can know God is good. Tolstoy says 'god is good' but Shestov says that means God is dead. For Kierkagaard Abraham's God Almighty was beyond good and evil -- we could not know whether his commandments were 'moral' but could only do our duty and obey, or not. The highest problem therefore becomes theodicy or how to justify or explain evil, or suffering, or the lack of perfection even.

I side today with _The Lucifer Principle_ (see the book and webstie) which claims we of the human species must affirm our evil roots. Only through our supreme evil have we arisen to dominance over the planet. We won't go back to the trees or become sheep, and nature will not have her way with us as she did the ants (after they evolved from the wasps). OF COURSE, now that we know our evil base, and affirm it as what's best and strongest in ourselves (in some ways), we can NOW transvalue that moral position, and in the name of philanthropy, take care of our species, and even the rest of life on earth. This is all the way of Nietzsche as I understand it, of course.

Schopenhauer, in the end, in the most mysterious way, affirmed Christianity, because after realizing nature (including human nature) is evil, he welcomed the 'pure' Christian view where we cease to procreate and finally the last group dance in a circle and sing of the wondrous end of the species -- a version of conquering evil, esp the evil in themselves. Nietzsche of course (one of my favorite phrases it seems) thought this madness, a preaching of madness he called it, the latest in a long history, and instead devoted himself to solving this problem so humanity could find a way to love life.

The original Zarathustra (known in the west as Zoraster) set the stage for the entire west (Judaism, christianity, and Islam) by declaring the battle between good and evil to be cosmic, assuming the war itself to occur in linear time between the beginning and end, and for good to finally triumph over evil in the end at the final battle. Nietzsche's Zarathustra returns to correct this fundamental error. See Thus Spoke Zarathusra, Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morality.

Nietzsche is hard hard hard. Nietzsche is hard work to understand and get. Nietzsche is hard! Leo Strauss says that Nietzsche looks around and describes where he is at thus: God is dead! Then, with his doctrine of will to power, he vindicates god. But it's a non-theistic position based in the religious instinct and is temporary, part of the transvaluation process. HARD! N is hard hard hard. See Jung's 1000 page book on him. The prophet of our time.

Science becomes a new religion, so to speak, and the universities becomes churches, so to speak. Suffering is not to be confused with punishment. Hyperborian philanthropy becomes necessary. We must master our own human nature before we are fit for mastering nature itself. As for happiness, Zarathustra says do not run after it, let it run after you (that's very esoteric, of course).

The thing is, one's 'ideal' follows one's most innermost fundamental 'insight' -- Zarathustra's insight into the secret of life leads to a new ideal, one that makes possible the taming of that monster of praise and blame we call a people's will to power.

As for being 'content' I recommend studying Locke, who diagnosed mankind's 'ease" as the problem, so he used a new theology (to create heaven on earth in the future, instead of any old heaven somewhere above in eternity) and released the acquisitive instincts (to make things our own) so none of us will take our ease but instead feel constantly the dis-ease to labor and acquire and change the world, thus creating a dynamic for modernity, especially for modern human psychology. We of course spread this dynamic around the world, and the natives no longer took their ease laboring a few hours a day, but instead became full of envy and desire for the 'things' we exposed them to, such as drugs and foods and technologies (a radio for example), so they labored to get them, hoping to find eventually some for of that 'ease' they had originally -- although never quite getting there. But modernity does not stop there, we are still in the midst of that dynamic. Locke's heaven on earth becomes Nietzsche's new hazar.

It's a complicated world. The history of modernity is complex. But morality, or a table of good and evil, or the voice of a people's will to power, remains, according to Nietzsche, the greatest power on earth.

This probably should be edited severely but I've not time. So here's my response, loose as it is, and I'm sure it doesn't address your points properly or even well, but I read you and now write this to you. Pleasure, or that which is pleasing, is contingent upon human nature, and nature, is subject to history, and we are both part of, and makers of, natural history. It's a matter of genealogy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, a lot of this is interesting, though not necessarily on topic -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:22:59 10/04/04 Mon

As far as the whole shame/duty thing goes, something such as sex in public for many people, while it does give some pleasure, also gives greater amounts of displeasure since we've been raised to see it as shameful.

Many of the debates about God I don't concern myself with too much, as my personal theology has developed into one in which there are many deities, none of them all good, all powerful, or all knowing, and all with their own personal (and changing) desires and wishes. Also, as to the whole "evil nature" thing, I tend to view it as "the morality of what was done by people who died long before I was born isn't my concern". Add in being pretty happy with my life, without doing much that I would consider to be morally wrong, and I just feel that a lot of the arguments these philosophers had don't really apply to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bottom Line: I think you're a product of natural history more than you know ... -- frisby, 07:19:02 10/06/04 Wed

I think the bottom line here is the degree to which we are products of natural history; I tend towards more and you I think towards less. We inherit much of what we are, believe, think, and do, from our past (not our personal one). We are born into a fate, a given, over which we have no say. We do create our own destiny, using that original fate, and mixing in some fortune and freedom, but we are born into a time and place -- therefore the first task of philosophers is to come to know where they are at. We drink in through our mother's milk, through the language we come to inhabit, and through the countless memes we incorprate, a natural history that for the most part directs our choices. I think we likely disagree on this. But I do agree that through logic and morality we can learn to play a part in our own destiny (the destination we eventually come to inhabit). Thanks for the dialogue; I really appreciate it; it's a bit rare for me these days.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'll try back ... -- auroramama, 08:37:40 10/06/04 Wed

Schopenhauer, in the end, in the most mysterious way, affirmed Christianity, because after realizing nature (including human nature) is evil, he welcomed the 'pure' Christian view where we cease to procreate and finally the last group dance in a circle and sing of the wondrous end of the species -- a version of conquering evil, esp the evil in themselves.

Like David Brin's illegal settlers on a fallow world in =Brightness Reef=. Six different species of sentients, continually examining and debating the question of whether they should allow their existence, or at least their sentience, to end, returning the world to its intended status as a haven for the evolution of new presentient species.

I like your Nietzsche very much, though I suspect most people would have trouble finding him on their own.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> interesting ... thanks -- frisby, 17:35:01 10/06/04 Wed

Brin's _Brightness Reef_ sounds interesting

Thanks for the comment on liking my Nietzsche. There's a famous quote from Nietzsche which I think he wrote on a scrap of paper which Heidegger makes a big deal of: "once you had discovered me it was no trick to find me -- the difficulty though is how to lose me." Heidegger makes of Nietzsche's awareness of his own destiny, what Jung calls the prophet of our time. My Nietzsche, or the one I think I came to over an intense decade of study, in conjunction with others I know, including especially the studies of Nietzsche by Martin Heidegger, George Grant, and Leo Strauss, comes down to a couple of simple things: how to be loyal to the earth now that god is dead, and how to love life in the face of the sickness of the time, a form of truth known as nihilism.

_Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ is of course is primary work, the one that begins with Zarathustra addressing the sun as a star.

Plato talks of the highest divine madness of god (Zeus) as incorporating the various other forms of divine madness related to Aphrodite and Eros, Apollo and the Muses, and Dionysos. I think Nietzsche instantiates that divine madness whih is known as philosophy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> they had sunglasses in plato's time? @>) -- anom, 22:39:36 09/18/04 Sat

Frankly, frisby, I also found that a little hard to follow, probably because I don't have a philosophy background. (I went to a "Philosophy and Science Fiction" panel at Worldcon, which I hope I'll have time to write a post about, & part of the discussion was about terminology & how it can separate "insiders" & "outsiders.") But I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, Finn, when you say, "Also, just because some guy said it doesn't make it so, regardless of whether lots of people agree with their philosophy or not," remember that applies to what you say too. You can interpret what anyone chooses to do, & how they see their own motivation, as being for their own pleasure, but just because you do doesn't make it so for them.

And possibly on both hands, Epicurus, Strauss, Descartes, Nietzsche, & others may have found philosophy the highest pleasure for them, but it bugs me somehow that all these high-powered minds couldn't seem to conceive that other people might find more pleasure in other things. It seems like a one-size-fits-all (or one-color-of-sunglasses-for-all) approach. Maybe it's that individuality is very important to me, & I chafe at anyone's insistence that what's true for them must be true for everyone.

BTW, frisby, I'm about halfway through a reply to your initial post in this thread, which I hope to get done while the thread's still up...although I haven't been having much luck w/that lately.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sunglasses yes, but they didn't know one could take them off -- frisby, 09:47:09 09/20/04 Mon

Yes, philosophy is usually full of controversy and argument and especially on matters of truth; for example, contrasting Plato's idea of truth as correctness (the 'one' correct way of thinking about something or looking at something) with Nietzsche's idea of truth as perspectivity (permitting an infinity of interpretations, with some better than others, according to some specified criteria, but one privileged perspective). Philosophy is possibly the most elite thing of all, putting it at odds with democratic endeavors, except to the extent that the philosophical champions the democratic because the democratic permits all to give voice without persecution, including the philosophic. I probably wear some lurkers/posters the wrong way with my posts but that's not my primary intent; it's just that after studying the history of philosophy (esp political philosophy) for over three decades, I find it next to impossible to not drop a line here and there that I've learned along the way. Also, I for the most part compose these on the cuff and don't add that all-important phase of editing and rewriting (except for the really important posts). It really was very nice meeting you in Chicago.

[> [> That's a partial solution but some are left out -- frisby, 10:05:52 09/17/04 Fri

Many and even perhaps most people can live their lives subordinating the truth to the good, but there is a rare type, which Plato and others called the philosopher, which demands truth at all costs, even if the truth is dangerous or even more deadly. But the question here remains whether nihilism is the truth. Ancient nihilism comes down to two propositions: first that the best thing is to never have been born, and second that the second best thing is to die as soon as possible. Modern nihilism transforms those two propositions to two others: first that the world that is ought not to be, and second that the world that ought to be will never be. According to Heidegger there are the epochs of being in which of each truth manifests differently, for example, originally as unconcealedness, and then with Plato as correctness, and so on until with Descartes it is certainty and finally with Nietzsche it is nihilism. Nietzsche himself took it as his task to transform the deadly truth of nihilism (the truth of quantum physics that becoming is sovereign, or that all is random change; the truth of cybernetic logistics that all types, concepts, and species are fluid or the arbitrariness of language; and the truth of evolutionary biology that there is no cardinal difference between us and the other animals) into a life-transforming truth, a new horizon. God is dead but the earth remains -- we now need to unlearn the old unhealthy god stuff and learn the healthy way to be true to the earth. Are we indeed next to nothing? or are we semi-eternal snowflakes (each containing a speck of darkness) partaking of the universe's cyclic fluidity in a celebration of dance? Can we rest with science or must we find recourse through poetry?

Well there's a beginning to my responses to these magnificent responses to that post of a whim. I know the big one comes later but I'll try to get to it. But still, is the sun "really" "just" a star??? Or maybe it both is and is not?

[> Re: Is the sun "really" a star? -- EvilLawyer, 18:53:35 09/13/04 Mon

Didn't Angel deal with this question in "Epiphany"?

Angel: "Well, I guess I kinda - worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."

Kate: "And now you do?"

Angel: "Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because - I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."

(Transcript from Buffyworld.com)

[> [> Suffering and Kindness -- frisby, 13:37:17 09/17/04 Fri

Suffering occurs when we will contrary to time's desire; when we will in accordance with it then all that matters is what we do; we are we've done; we become what we've been. Kindness is often best acheived by letting something be, instead of attempting to alter it, just letting it come and and perish and then be past. Things like these turn on the center of gravity involved, especially with regard to time.

Buffy is kind, she tends and befriends, and even thus leads Spike to redemption. But she also knows all to well that kindness sometimes means being ruthless.

There is even a dark type of philanthropy (Nietzsche calls it hyperborean philanthropy) that seems merciless, ruthless, cruel, and very violent. Like Xander says often, make it quick (and not like country music).

[> Re: Is the sun "really" a star? -- Rook, 18:56:06 09/13/04 Mon

The "cure" is understanding that we are not all beautiful special snowflakes, and that all we really have is this moment. What we choose to do with that information is up to us. If someone feels that the eventual extincton of his species somehow invalidates his existence, then that person's going to miss out on all the things around them that will validate their existence. What we have in this moment is the ability to make ourselves and others happy, to make the journey through life one of enjoyment rather than one of torment.

It doesn't mean that you don't think of the future, that you don't leave things a little bit better than you found them for the people coming up behind you. But it does mean that you don't predicate your personal philosophy or way of life on things that may or may not happen a billion years after you're dead and gone.



"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." - Tolkein


ANGEL: Well, I guess I kinda worked it out. If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. - I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward, finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it.

KATE: And now you do?

ANGEL: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

[> [> the time that is given us? -- frisby, 13:46:37 09/17/04 Fri

But the time that is given us is time's desire (Z 2.20), which is the time that comes, arrives, occurs, passes, and is past. I ask you, observe 'this moment' -- does the future come and arrive, or does the past 'cause' the future? What is given us comes from the future as pure possibility and what we 'can' do is transform it into our past, make history so to speak, create the artwork of our own historical life if you will, as opposed to striving to change and alter and cause the future to be such and such.

Tolkien is right that all we do is to decide what to do with the time that is given us -- and at our best we can create history. Most of us though most of the time vainly and foolishly try to create a future -- we even take revenge on time itself and conceptually represent it as conforming to our own ill wills, as a river flowing into the future instead of the past. When Nietzsche talks of "willing backwards" as the answer, he really means to unlearn willing versus time's desire and to learn to let it simply be as it desires, as historical, not progressive.

[> yes -- skeeve, 19:54:43 09/13/04 Mon

It wasn't known until the invention of the spectroscope,
but had been suspected for some time before that.
'Twouldn't be surprising if the suspicions had started shortly after earth-centric cosmology started fading away.

[> [> yes BUT! -- frisby, 13:50:25 09/17/04 Fri

But who gets credit for discovering it or asserting it or demonstrating it? Copernicus didn't know it, nor Galileo nor even Newton. Why doesn't Carl Sagan make it a 'big' point in Cosmos? Is it Herschel and his little sister who should get the credit? It's the primary mark of the modern man (or human): to know the sun is a star, an average one at that. Upon 'who' did this insight first dawn????

Nietzsche begins his _Zarathustra_ saying that one morning Zarathustra rose and stepped before he sun and said "Thou great star!"

Zarathustra represents modernity?

[> [> [> Re: yes BUT! -- skeeve, 09:15:57 09/20/04 Mon

The first person to suspect that the sun is a star, was probably Seth,
previous folks having been too busy to ponder the question.

There was insufficient data until at least until the invention of the spectroscope in the 19th century.
The name you are seeking is probably Sir Arthur Eddington.
'Twas he who first figured out that the sun and other stars run on hydrogen fusion.

[> [> [> [> Seth? the mythical figure? -- frisby, 10:36:10 09/20/04 Mon

Being busy does indeed inhibit most people from pondering the stars, in fact, the first philosophers were called foolish stargazers because they fell into holes from keeping there heads in the sky (Thales for example).

But who is Seth? You mean the brother of Cain and Able? the founder of the first city, and therewith, the arts and the sciences? Or some other occult figure?

Eddington may be right but I'm thinking it was Herschel, and either way, the discoverer doesn't get much credit for what I think is perhaps the most monumental fact about the modern world. I've been asking people who I meet who first guessed the fact, and most people say Copernicus or Galileo, but neither of them knew the sun to be a star. I think (without researching) that Eddington came after Herschel (who guessed it about 1800 if I remember right).

To know the sun is a star is to be modern! I can't seem to let go of the fact that no one actually taught me how we came to know it! I've looked at lots of astronomy books, and talks on the sun usually begin "the sun is a star" but no is ever given credit!

Am I the only one to sense something amiss here? (wouldn't be the first time, nor the first time I merely thought there was when there wasn't)

And regardless of all of that, just pondering the fact that the sun is a star changes 'everything''''''''

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Seth? the mythical figure? -- skeeve, 10:07:25 09/27/04 Mon

Yes. That Seth. He was picked for being early.
'Twasn't Herschel. The Herschels predated the spectrascope.

I think that you have hit on the reason.
It was suspected for so long that confirmation didn't register as a milestone to most people.

At one time Eddington told his girlfriend that he was the
only person in the world who knew what made the stars shine.
If you search the net, you can find a quotation of
Feynman quoting him, though not by name.
My recollection is that in the preceeding 48 hours is when some man (Eddington) first learnd that the sun is a star.
It was certainly no earlier.

I occasionally attend an astonomy club meeting and will ask then.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Eddington -- frisby, 11:43:12 09/27/04 Mon

According to my research, an astronomer from the Harvard Observatory, named Descartes. See my final post to this thread. I think you're right though about Eddington and the 'power' of the sun/stars!

Do you share my amazement though about the fact that so few have any idea about this -- and yet it's the most pertinent fact to the modern mind (that the sun is a star)!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Eddington -- skeeve, 14:57:43 09/27/04 Mon

Descartes wasn't any better informed than Seth.
It's possible that Descartes was the first to write down the notion for the general public.
The general public already had it, but was largely illiterate.

I don't share your amazement because I grew up with that notion.
The books I read in grade school listed facts,
but gave know hint that these facts had discoverers.

BTW Bessel died before the spectroscope.
He was the first to measure the parallax to a star other than the local one.
It's possible that someone before Eddington knew that the sun and the stars had similar compositions and inferred that they shined by the same mechanism.
Eddington learned that the mechanism was fusion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you are wrong about the general public... -- frisby, 09:16:55 09/28/04 Tue

I think you are contending that the general public has almost always known the sun is a star? And by Seth you mean ever since there has been man? (not counting his brothers and father) or am I way of the mark?

If so, I must say I think you are wrong. This fact that the sun is a star is really very recent and most people who have walked the earth never even considered the possibility -- although I can't prove this definitively of course. But can you show in print or any other type of artifact that the notion had dawned on anyone else before Descartes? My amazement is that I too was taught the fact and no big deal was made about its discovery, or to the accompanying fact that most people have never known it.

Thanks for the correction on Bessel. I still don't know who actually even proved the fact then.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you are wrong about the general public... -- skeeve, 08:21:24 09/29/04 Wed

I think you are contending that the general public has almost always known the sun is a star?

NOT known: believed, suspected, whatever, but NOT known.

And by Seth you mean ever since there has been man? (not counting his brothers and father) or am I way of the mark?

I'd have picked on one of his sisters, but Seth didn't have any sisters.

If so, I must say I think you are wrong. This fact (emphasis added) that the sun is a star is really very recent

The fact is recent. The early twentieth century to be more precise.

and most people who have walked the earth never even considered the possibility -- although I can't prove this definitively of course.

Of course they didn't consider it.
There wasn't a lot to consider.
Gee, most of the stars are the same color as the sun only not as bright.
Maybe they're the same kind of thing.
Further Seth and Descartes kneweth not.
Not a lot of considering there.

But can you show in print or any other type of artifact that the notion had dawned on anyone else before Descartes?

No.
Can you show me by any means that Descartes was smarter or better informed than Seth on the subject?

My amazement is that I too was taught the fact and no big deal was made about its discovery, or to the accompanying fact that most people have never known it.

It is occasionally pointed out the the sun is an ordinary G-type star,
but it's not even used as an example of how wrong the earth-centrists were.

BTW did Descartes state it as a possibility or as a fact.
In either case, what did he use as evidence?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Descartes -- frisby, 10:46:50 09/29/04 Wed

In his _Principles of Philosophy_ (3.84) Descartes writes "The sun can be counted as one of the fixed stars, and the earth as one of the planets." He also implies this at least six or so more times following that. As to what he is doing there, it is very complex, involving proofs, causes, and effects. I'm not sure where he stands there regarding possibility, fact, or evidence, although he seems to discuss all three. The general topic is the use of experiemental phenomena by philosophy.

Anyway, the astronomer at the Harvard Observatory who told me this said Descartes did not prove it, but does get the credit for first proposing it, at least in a published work.

But if hear you correctly, you think many people before then stretching back centuries or more, suspected the sun is a star, or at least considered the possibility? I've not seen any evidence for that, but I wonder. That's the precise point that has amazed me -- the point that no one or almost no one ever did consider it. Not even the wisest such as Plato, Augustine, or even Copernicus. It's obvious to us modern minds today, and our children learn it at the earliest age. But common? I still doubt it.

As for Descartes, he is notoriously difficult, complex, and hard to enucleate, and I've spent many years studying him. I know his _Discourse_ best. I think he thinks of himself as a philosopher first and a scientist second. As for a theologian, I think he lies terribly. He opens the discourse speaking of reason as being distributed in common, but later speaks again and again of strong minds as contrasted with weak minds (with reason making the difference).

I guess I'm contending that it's a very recent notion; no one in China for centuries and centuries up to modern times even considered the possibility. Nor Africa or Europe. And the Biblical scriptures don't even hint of the fact. But am I fooling myself? Have many people guessed at this fact throughout history? And no one has ever written it down? Is this not the most amazing fact (not that the sun is a star, but that no one dreamed of it before modern times)? Or am I fooling myself?

I suppose you think the latter?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Descartes -- skeeve, 08:48:06 09/30/04 Thu

No one had said much about it, because there wasn't much to say.

At this point I should back off (a half step) from what I'd written earlier.

At about the time of Descartes, there was a little bit more to say on the subject, though so far as I can tell, Descartes wasn't one of those saying it.

The apparent absence of stellar parallax was used as an argument against the Copernican system.
It required the assuption that stars were very far away.
For the stars to be like the sun they would have to be very far away, otherwise they would appear much brighter.

There would have been more to say in 1838 when Bessel measured the parallax of 61 Cygni.

I'd say that sometime between 1600 and 1839 the notion that the sun is a star became better established than a mere suspicion, but was still way short of fact.

Even if we accept the notion that Descartes wasthe first to write that the sun is a star, it's not clear that he deserves credit.
His reasoning was rather horrid.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Descartes's reasoning -- frisby, 14:56:55 10/01/04 Fri

I've studied Descartes for a long time but more in the context of a political philosophy that defeats the tyranny of christendom while establishing the foundation for a new science to replace it, rather than as a scientist in his own right. He deserves the various titles he has received, such as father of modern philosophy or father of the modern world. He's a founder perhaps as influential as Jesus, or so he himself implies (loosely, according to one of my older professors, long ago). He's also, according to Leo Strauss, one of a handfull of co-conspirators who managed to murder 'God' and start the new order of the ages. My point here is that he writes very cagily, one to evade persecution, and two so as to hide his 'real' teachings from everyone except his true audience (the great minds -- the political philosophers -- as opposed to merely good minds -- the scientists -- not to mention the many strong minds and the even more weak minds -- those who must believe in God and the immortal soul and can't accept the facts of natural history, that they are one with flies or ants ......

I could go on about Descartes for some time (eg, that his criterion of truth as clear and distinct ideas, a version of faith, was a cover for his real criterion of utility) but I'll stop there and doubt further encouragement will be demanded --

this is an old story (see _Persecution and the Art of Writing_ by Leo Strauss, among other works..............

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> whaddya mean seth had no sisters? -- anom, 23:37:59 09/30/04 Thu

"And by Seth you mean ever since there has been man? (not counting his brothers and father) or am I way of the mark?

I'd have picked on one of his sisters, but Seth didn't have any sisters."

Genesis 5:4: "And the days of Adam after he begot Seth were 800 years, and he begot sons and daughters." Actually, skeeve, I don't get why you start w/Seth rather than his parents & their 1st 2 children. And Frisby, why do you omit not only Seth's sisters but his mother? After all, she was the 1st to eat of the tree of knowledge!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seth's Family -- frisby, 03:51:01 10/01/04 Fri

I had trouble really believing skeeve was saying everyone or most everyone since Seth suspected the sun was a star, so I merely was trying to clarify (even though I'd asked and he'd confirmed) that we were speaking of the famous brother of Cain & Abel, the sons of Adam (but I suspect I should have mentioned Eve at that point). At worst, an oversight on my part, but excusable I think because of my amazement that skeeve contended this.

Do you agree that most people throughout history suspected the sun was a star, or, is that notion a very recent insight marking the mind of modern humanity? I stil tend towards the latter at this point. I don't think there is any implication anywhere of this fact in the entire Biblical Tradition, including even Islam, and that even Copernicus didn't get it.

Am I wrong?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Seth's Family -- anom, 21:55:16 10/03/04 Sun

"...I merely was trying to clarify (even though I'd asked and he'd confirmed) that we were speaking of the famous brother of Cain & Abel, the sons of Adam (but I suspect I should have mentioned Eve at that point)."

Yeah, I think Eve is worth including. I can understand that "brothers" meant Cain & Abel, since we don't know the names of any other siblings. But there's no reason the same conjecture about Seth wouldn't apply to all of them.

"Do you agree that most people throughout history suspected the sun was a star, or, is that notion a very recent insight marking the mind of modern humanity? I stil tend towards the latter at this point. I don't think there is any implication anywhere of this fact in the entire Biblical Tradition, including even Islam, and that even Copernicus didn't get it.

Am I wrong?"

You're asking me? I have no idea! My impression is that it's recent, but whether it's a, or "the," marker of modernity is to me a separate question, & I have no idea of the answer. It's probably different for each person. I see no reason to hang the label "modern" on this 1 piece of knowledge in particular.

I don't know of anything in any religious tradition that deals w/the sun as a star. My knowledge of world religions & their teachings on such things isn't all that extensive. What I know of Jewish tradition is mostly the Torah & some of the later writings that are also part of the Hebrew Bible, so I can't cite any Talmudic discussion of it. The Creation story in Genesis talks about the sun & moon as the 2 "great lights" & mentions the stars separately from both.

I have a post about half finished in reply to your original post at the start of this thread that discusses this a little more, & some of the other aspects you raise. I don't usually divide posts into >1 part, but maybe this time it's worth making an exception.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Religion and the Sun/Star Identification -- frisby, 03:15:11 10/04/04 Mon

Nietzsche opens his most important book _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ with Zarathustra waking up one morning after ten years in his cave, and stepping before the 'sun' and saying to it 'thou great star' --

His book enters the genre of epic literature, along with Milton, Dante, Virgil, Homer, the Indic parallels (Ramayana?), and, dare I say, some parts of the Hebrew Bible. It's an epic for modernity, for the modern mind, for modern humanity, and opens with the unique mark of the modern mind, that which sets it apart from all other religions or worldviews hitherto, the notion, nay the fact, that the sun is one of the stars (a smaller corollary is that the earth is one of the planets of this star). That perspective, one that imagines us positioned upon another star looking back, a position that implies and assumes what Nietzsche calls perspectivity (in contraat to Plato's truth as correctness).

That's part of why I find the disoovery of the answer to my research (the question of who gets credit for realizing the sun is a star) over the past few months to be Descartes to be so amazing. Namely, because Nietzsche quotes Descartes as the motto to his _Human All Too Human_ and the place the quote comes from shows his intimate knowledge of Descartes's philosohy, including the main point that the most intense satisfaction of all comes from the study of philosophy.

To realize that our sun is merely one of the stars, not something unique in the universe, much less a god of some sort, is the political equivalent of claiming there is but one god and all others' notions of gods are false -- it sets the stage for all of science.

The larger issue I'm thinking about these days is modernity itself 'as' a new religion or worldview on a par with the world religions like Islam. I took a course a few years ago called "Islam and Modenrity" and we read several of the radical conservative Muslim thinkers, and they treated the West in that manner, as a war between their religion and ours (ours including market capitalism, liberal democracy, technological science, and 'religion' in a smaller sense as a consumer product one buys and ocassionally replaces), a war to the death. Following Nietzsche, with his "Cheers for Physics" and his "Yes to Science" (what he also calls the courageous adventure we call the history of humanity), I want to find a way to affirm modernity (after decades of griping about pollution, inhumanity, imperialism, etc) and wonder about its eventual codification of thought (Descartes, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, etc).

I close saying again, it was nice to meet in Chicago (so different responding to someone you met face to face), and I look forward to your post to my original post.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: whaddya mean seth had no sisters? -- skeeve, 08:37:05 10/01/04 Fri

Sisters? Name one.

Do you really think "and daughters" was in the Original and that it was meaningful?

Translation can be interesting and is not always exact.
There is also the possibilty of "correction".
Someone infers, not necessarily correctly, that because Adam had grandchildren he must have had daughters.
Said someone corrects the text accordingly.

If the Author is The Big G, the situation is even more interesting.
We have evidence from TBG Himself that women are barely worth mentioning and are not worth naming.


I picked on Seth because he wasn't as famous as his predecessors.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Seth" is tangential ... what about the main point? -- frisby, 10:10:35 10/01/04 Fri

Please clarify whether you are contending that people throughout human history have suspected the sun is a star (as opposed to my contention that it is a very recent realization, and very few of the people who have ever lived, suspected it).

Proof is another question of course, but it has been proved for a couple of centuries, I take it.

As for Descartes, I have some further thoughts to post later, especially as to his "tangled reasoning".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Seth" is tangential ... what about the main point? -- skeeve, 11:52:34 10/04/04 Mon

My contention is that Man has suspected
that the sun is a star since before writing.

There wasn't much evidence until about the time of Descartes.
At that time, one could use a stronger term than suspect,
but know would have been a large overstatement.

When it could have been known depends partly on what precisely is meant by the sun is a star.

Does it mean that the sun and stars are all self-luminous objects?
Does it mean that the sun and stars are all incandesant objects?
Does it mean that the sun and stars are all incandesant objects that get their heat the same way?
Does it mean that the sun and stars all get their heat from fusion?

At the time of Descartes, it was obvious that if the stars were planets,
they would have to be beyond Saturn, waaay beyond Saturn.
To go from this information to the conclusion that the stars were too far away to be illuminated by the sun would probably have required optical information that they didn't have.

Bessel, on the other hand, could have made just that inference.
It might have been made before him.

In the sense of knowing that the sun and stars are both self-luminous objects, Bessel knew that the sun was a star.

In the sense of knowing that the stars and the sun get their heat the same way,
that was Eddington.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your Mistaken Contention -- frisby, 07:21:22 10/18/04 Mon

So I assume you now agree your contention is mistaken. People from time immemorial have NOT suspected the sun to be a star, meaning there is no essential difference between them apart from distance -- that the sun is not unique but is simply one star among many. Therefore, even today, when a child is told for the first time that the sun is no different than the stars, it is almost unbelievable, it is incredible, it is an awesome fact, one that marks modern minds off from all who have lived hitherto. What is assumed in the capacity to even consider this fact as true is Nietzsche's notion of perspectivity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: whaddya mean seth had no sisters? -- anom, 22:30:34 10/03/04 Sun

"Sisters? Name one."

I can't. No names are given. Nor are the names of the sons born after Seth. You point out yourself that few women (compared to men) are named in the Torah. I'll add that this is true even in some cases when women are a significant part of the action. So not being named is no indication that they didn't exist. There's no basis for your definitive statement that Seth didn't have any sisters.

"Do you really think 'and daughters' was in the Original and that it was meaningful?"

I know for sure it's in the original Hebrew, because I can read it that way. In Hebrew, banim can mean either "sons" or "children"; when banot is added, it is specifically to include the daughters. The same phrase is used for 10 generations of Adam & his descendants (only the oldest son of the oldest son in each generation is named; the rest are just called "sons and daughters"). I'd say that's meaningful. I don't object to your skepticism, but I don't appreciate your tone ("Do you really think...").

"Translation can be interesting and is not always exact.
There is also the possibilty of 'correction'.
Someone infers, not necessarily correctly, that because Adam had grandchildren he must have had daughters.
Said someone corrects the text accordingly."

This "someone" is telling you that the original text says Adam begot daughters. The Hebrew is written pretty simply & doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation, at least on this point.

"If the Author is The Big G, the situation is even more interesting.
We have evidence from TBG Himself that women are barely worth mentioning and are not worth naming."

What evidence? Or are you saying that if God wrote the Torah, the omission of women's names itself constitutes the evidence? Many women are named in the Torah--far fewer than men, but that hardly warrants a blanket statement that they're "not worth naming." I can think of 15 off the top of my head. That's in the Torah alone, w/out getting into the later writings. And many of the men's names occur only in lists of "begats," after which we never hear any more about them. Being named in itself doesn't necessarily mean all that much.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> the issue of 'woman' -- frisby, 03:28:18 10/04/04 Mon

I read in the NY Times the other day that our 'real' battle is not the war on terror, but our continuing and intensifying insistence that the status of females in the third world can not be permitted --

We moderns (not so much the first of the three waves, but definitely throughout the second) insist on the complmentarity of the sexes with regard to their mutual importance for the future of the species. It's of course way to complicated to speak of it lightly, but it includes our notions of human rights, the equality of the sexes, the centrality of marriage and children, and all of that leads to controversy and disagreements -- BUT -- I think we moderns generally stand opposed to one half of the species being treated as beasts of burden, with no opportunity for education, not to mention so many of the horrendous other things we find in 'third world nations' including some and maybe most but not all of the Islamic world (the veil as the symbol -- but compare the tie in the west?).

We moderns, versed in science, are called to political imperialism in 'some' regards, and the liberation and empowerment of the female of the species is one of those regards.

I understand the place of the female in the Jewish Cabala is a different matter that the place in other parts of the Jewish tradition?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: whaddya mean seth had no sisters? -- skeeve, 12:23:36 10/04/04 Mon

My apology for the tone.

If you read Genesis in Hebrew, that probably eliminates translation difficulties.
Unless you were reading an Original,
it does not eliminate the possibility of 'correction'.

With regard to the unimportance of a begat, one should note that the Bible contains a whole lot more begats than bores.
Apparently God believes begetting is more important than bearing.
What is the ratio of named men, excluding begats, to named women, excluding bores?
In God's book, any man or woman God deems worth naming would be named.

I don't know about Judaism, but Christianity isn't even united about what books are scripture.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is the mother a true parent, or only the father? -- frisby, 07:28:05 10/18/04 Mon

In Aeschylus's _Orestea_ Apollo states the new foundational myth of the new age represented by the Olympians as opposed to the older titanic generation. "The true parent is he who mounts, while she who bears the seed is no parent at all but merely a nurse." That is, life is due to the seed of the male while the female contributes only the nourishment to the newly planted seed.

Of course we today know for a fact this is absolutely wrong. In fact, we regard to mammals (which includes us, even though a great deal of the American population denies this truth), the female gender is the default, and the male is a transformed female. This is not true for other lifeforms such as fish for example.

My question though is whether the Hebrew Bible (meaning the old testament without the addition of any new) assumed the same agricultural metaphor with its 'begats' and its lack of bores???

Did those of Jerusalem make the same mistake as those of Athens with regard to the role of gender in creating life?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is the mother a true parent, or only the father? -- auroramama, 11:14:43 10/18/04 Mon

Actually, the funniest thing about this argument (which I ran into, in an updated form, in an infamous XF fanfic) is that no one replied, "So what? Even if there's no genetic contribution, don't you owe something to the "nurse" without whom you'd be a splotch on the floor?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> a nurse is much less than a mother! -- frisby, 16:17:53 10/18/04 Mon

In a relative sense, maybe a nurse is much more than nothing at all, but a nurse is still much much less than a true mother! In many of the older pagan religions the world was born from a mother AND father, not merely a father god who creates by speaking. I think it's important and colors everything within that world. Of course, sooner or later one must encounter that which has no parents. For the greeks, it was eros that was both the oldest of the gods (having no parents) and also the youngest (a child of Aphrodite and Ares or sex and violence -- I think). Then again, some cosmoganies speak only of the mother who gives birth (with no father, that role amounting to merely a teacher, who effects the child only birth, not during gestation).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a nurse is much less than a mother! -- auroramama, 13:25:28 10/19/04 Tue

I wasn't referring to the legends in which a male god (or a god whose female aspects are secondary) creates new life just by speaking. I was talking about the idea that only a genetic parent is a true parent. Perhaps the term I should have used is not "nurse" but "surrogate mother". Without a womb-mother, there's no baby and no human species, no matter who provides the genes.

Athene apparently gestated in the head of Zeus (if his brain was getting squeezed like a pregnant woman's bladder, it would explain a few of his more idiotic decisions; but no, I think she's supposed to be born of his thought in the twinkling of an eye.) He rescues Semele's child and tucks it inside his thigh, and is therefore both father and second-stage surrogate mother -- but there's no evidence that he could have done without Semele altogether. His thigh is playing the role of a modern NICU.

The idea that genetic parenthood is the only real parenthood is still coloring our world, for sure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'Athena' was the winning strategy for patriarchy!!!! -- frisby, 05:14:13 10/20/04 Wed

In Greek theology, most of the emphasis is placed on the two wars between, first, the titans against the elementals, exemplified by Cronus against Uranus, and second, the olympians against the titans, exemplified by Zeus against Cronus. The overall theodicy or justification within that theology is the presentation of Zeus as 'now' the one and only high god (with Apollo as his emisarry, representing the olympians generally). BUT, those wars are merely cover-up of the REAL war, which is the one against gaea or the earth, representing the feminine principle. This is shown in three steps, first by Uranus who oppresses his children by not allowing them to be born from Gaea or to develop on their own, until Cronus puts a stop to it. Second, Cronus in turn allows his children to be born from Rhea but then incorporates them (eats) and claims them as his own, as his property, but Zeus ends this. Last, Zeus figures out what strategy "will" work -- he swallos his pregnant wife (Metis, his wife before Hera) and then gives birth to the young she had within her, Athena, who then is given birth to by Zeus, from his head. She thinks she has no mother at all, not knowing about Metis. During the first court trial of all time, when the jury is divided, she rules in favor of Orestes, saying I had no mother, so I side with Orestes (Apollo had advocated for Orestes, saying the one who mounts is the true parent, while the female is merely a nurse). With this, patriarchy is established; the male line is what counts; the female's generative power has been oppressed, incorporated, and appropriated by the male. The new wisdom amounts to affirming the maculine with a 'yes' and denying the feminine with a 'no' -- this is the fountain of the west that stems from Athens. Athena is the key because she believed she had no mother. Ultimately the 'real' is against Gaea, the earth. All the wars are cover-ups of that real ultimate war. The nurse, the surrogate mother, are of course important today, but painted against this scenario of genetic tyranny, they are as nothing in comparison to the true mother, in conjunction with the true father. The truth of course is the complementarity of the sexes, and all aspects of parenting (genetic, womb, maternal care, etc) are essential and important, whether done singularly or by several. But the historical fact of misogyny and patriarchy must not be forgotten.

got to go...

[> [> [> [> [> [> astronomy club answers -- skeeve, 07:45:00 10/13/04 Wed

I got two answers:
Forever.
Sometime since spectra.

The first is obviously wrong.
The second is correct for knowledge that fusion powers the sun and others stars.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, wrong I think, but do we 'know'? -- frisby, 07:31:36 10/18/04 Mon

I still wonder if there are any hints in world literature that anyone ever suspected the sun to be a star unlike the ones we see at night. Did the notion of the Coperican system have to be considered first, before the other even became conceivable?

[> Response Part I -- Kenny, 20:02:38 09/13/04 Mon

Lifeless

This rock is a pretty volatile place right now. Huge volcanoes pump gas and debris out of the rock, helping to create a blanket around it. The surface of the rock slides against itself, as if the rock is twisting and turning, trying to find a comfortable position. Water covers most of the rock. Its wonders are largely hidden from the sun s light. Near these vents are collections of ash that have accumulated for millions of years. They are full of holes, and those holes are full of activity. Special molecules have claimed these holes as their home. These molecules come together and form chains. Each of these chains then folds up into a unique shape. Sometimes, that shape will let the chain change the shape of another chain. Sometimes the chain just exists until a force comes by to begin removing links. Soon these special molecules will be enveloped by a blanket of fat, giving them a means to escape the confines of the holes. Soon these envelopes will begin to divide, allowing them to proliferate all over the rock. A process called life will have started. Four billion years after that life will be able to recognize itself. That s when the universe will begin to exist. The water in the ocean will become blue and the surface of the land will become a mosaic of greens and browns and grays, as there will finally be someone to see them. The waves will begin to thunder and the changing landscape will begin to groan, as there will finally be someone to hear them. Sulfur will begin to have an odor. Stones will become hard, water will become wet, glucose will become sweet. The universe will become aware of itself. And one day, the awareness will fade. Sand will no longer be rough. Heat will no longer be warm. Snow will no longer be white. Life will be gone, and all there will be is a rock that does not exist.

[> [> Re: Response Part II -- Kenny, 20:52:06 09/13/04 Mon

First off, please indulge me the parent post. It's not necessarily an answer to your question, but it is something I needed to get out of my mind after reading your post.

So, onto a more direct response to your question (I certainly won't label it as an answer). First off, I believe that the concept of "I" is both real and artificial. It is real in the sense that the collection of cells that constitute the organism known as each individual person is autonomous. Our mind works in such a way that we can very easily differentiate different living things (up to a point, anyway...as we learn more, concepts such as viruses and biofilms make us question our definitions of living and autonomous). It is artificial, though, in the fact that no living being is truly autonomous. I am a highly concentrated and organized portion of the universe. My existence is not a blip. My existence is that of the universe. My conciousness is a different story. It is incredibly finite, and, yes, a blip compared to the the lifespan of the universe.

And I don't really see that as a problem. It's simply a fact. To me, it's a wondrous fact. I'm not just a noun, I'm a verb. I am part of the universe, and I am the act of the universe experiencing itself all rolled into one. If anything, the knowledge that it is finite makes it even better. As a group, humanity is the conciousness of the universe. There may be matter after we are gone, but reality exists only because we do. I don't consider the span of humanity's to be of any relevance, because the times before and after it are unimportant. They are dead. There are interesting only as long as humanity exists to make them interesting. As far as I'm concerned, reality begins and ends with intelligence that can contemplate that concept.

[> [> [> Re: Response Part II -- Jane, 18:00:18 09/15/04 Wed

To me, it's a wondrous fact. I'm not just a noun, I'm a verb. I am part of the universe, and I am the act of the universe experiencing itself all rolled into one
Yes. This is very much how I see the universe. I once had a moment of extreme clarity in which I knew that what Carl Sagan once said was true: "We are all star stuff".

[> [> [> [> star stuff, yes, but perhaps even more??? -- frisby, 10:41:36 09/20/04 Mon

Yes, I agree it is fantastically amazing to know we are stardust -- I love the Woodstock song for that line alone.

But, you might also ponder one of the ultimate philosophical questions stemming from both Athens and Jerusalem: are we mortals, we human beings, higher in dignity than the stars, or lower?

Kant of course, for one example, said yes, because of the moral law we find within, but many other peoples of course said of course not.

Another related question I've dwelled with for decades, is whether the line between life (us) and non-life (stars) is really all that clear-cut. We now know that stars do indeed begin and end but can we say they are born and die? Is the distinction between life and death the ultimate distinction, or is the whole itself, in some deeper sense, alive (touching on pantheism here of some sort)????

[> [> [> [> [> Stellar Life -- dmw, 14:34:07 09/21/04 Tue

Another related question I've dwelled with for decades, is whether the line between life (us) and non-life (stars) is really all that clear-cut. We now know that stars do indeed begin and end but can we say they are born and die? Is the distinction between life and death the ultimate distinction, or is the whole itself, in some deeper sense, alive (touching on pantheism here of some sort)????

While Frank Herbert wrote a couple of novels where stars were living creatures and one of the characters in Diane Duane's So You Want to be a Wizard? is a white hole, I think that if stellar life exists, it will be more like plasma physicist Gregory Benford depicts it in his galactic center stories. In his stories, advanced lifeforms exist on stars as stable vortexes or solitons of plasma.

Stars might make even better homes after they leave the main sequence and become something like a neutron star. Robert Forward's Flight of the Dragonfly and Starquake are about such life. However, Olaf Stapledon and Stephen Baxter are probably the best authors at examining universal life. Stapledon talks about lifeforms that include entire galactic clusters, while Baxter looks at the possibility that just as light matter is only a tiny fraction of what actually exists, that most life actually exists in the dark matter of the universe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> What about 'our' earth and sun? -- frisby, 07:36:06 10/18/04 Mon

Do you really think the gaea hypothesis, that our planet earth is in some sense alive or conscious or sentient or whatever, might be true? And if so, that our sun also might be more than just a hot rock or nuclear fire or whatever, and that the solar system might be an entity in itself, and the galaxy? If so, we're approaching Hinduism in some ways. Thanks for your posts! I find them extremely enlightening and might renew my old love of science fiction. I guess where else might one turn to find speculations of this sort.

[> [> [> Partly agree and partly disagree -- frisby, 14:03:59 09/17/04 Fri

Nietzsche teaches the superman, otherwise known as the complementary human being, otherwise known as the sovereign individual (who is autonomous, responsible, and ruled by conscience). Honesty (or the will to power in the form of the will to truth) is the highest virtue, even a new god, and integrity (or the result of his new thought, the horizon of eternal return) is the essence of his character. We were once merely part of a people, but through philosophy we can become intelligent, independent individuals, a new nobility. But all of this must take place within the horizon where being true to the earth comes first of all, and where the meaning and purpose of life results from marriage and children.

The TV show Andromeda got it right that for true Nietzscheans marriage and children come first or are highest or ground the new fundamental "law of overcoming" ---

(great post ! for the most part!)

[> [> Now this is almost 'joyful' science -- frisby, 13:56:05 09/17/04 Fri

Yes, natural history, with its own nobility and beauty, and we're part of it, a special part of it perhaps in some ways, and there mysteriously emerges life on this earth. Now that's the miracle, not that God the father in his infinite compassion decided to become one of us and himself pay the debt we owe to him.

And for Nietzsche, we now live at the highest moment, when the greatest event is before us: the mastery and ownership of the planet is the issue; but his question is are we "fit" for it? Have we altered our own human nature to the extent necessary to now master nature? He calls this the time of the great noon.

[> i see you did it! -- anom, 22:40:11 09/13/04 Mon

I shoulda checked sooner. I'll try to respond tomorrow. I won't say I'll "answer," because I don't claim to have answers to all (maybe any) of those questions. But I do have some thoughts that I hope you & others will find interesting.

[> [> Wow! Yes, now comes the time to think about and maybe respond. -- frisby, 07:19:49 09/14/04 Tue

I'll think about these responses and try to maybe respond back? I especially liked the info on the importance of the spectroscope!

[> [> yes and i've done 'some' responses' but nuf for now -- frisby, 14:06:56 09/17/04 Fri

how am i ever going to reply to the physicist? do i simply agree? it really is all so very very amazing, with us in the middle thereabouts (meaning not necessarily the center)

BUT WILL WE IN OUR LIFETIMES LEARN ALL THAT MUCH ABOUT THE GALACTIC YEAR?

[> Actually -- CW, 07:52:46 09/14/04 Tue

Being able to prove something and realizing something are two very different things.

Galileo was a pretty sharp guy. I suspect if someone had suggested to him that the stars were fundamentally the same thing as the sun except much farther away, he'd probably have said it was a definite possibility unless the inquisitors were standing around nearby.

I suspect he'd have had a much more difficult time with Herschel's 'millstone' or what amounted to the discovery of the galaxy. The proof that the galaxy was not unique at the beginning of the 1900's probably would have stunned either Galileo or Newton, although I think both of them would have found it a pleasant surprise.

[> [> good point -- frisby, 14:16:05 09/17/04 Fri

i don't doubt that some unknown person at some unknown time standing on the earth at some unknown place maybe just maybe had the thought dawn on him that the only essential difference between the sun and the stars we see at night is one of distance

but is there no record of this in history? no speculation? even among the classic greek philosophers? maybe there is and i've just not stumbled on it yet and been informed of it? and how come just about everyone doesn't give credit to someone or other for that most magnificent of all insights? to realize the sun is merely a star, one of countless others? did anyone in the biblical tradition ever even ponder such a wondrous thought? are not we moderns who know this to be true wise above all others to that degree? we know the secret of our phenomenal world! The sun "is" a star! (but who knows that the secret of humanity's success comes from the discovery of deep time by the female of our species, from her learning that her blood cycle follows the moon cycle -- the mystery of time! and that all the females 50,000 years or so ago would ovulate at the same time (during the full moon, causing the males to behave like werewolves) and begin menses at the same time (during the new moon, giving rise to the notion of the vampire) (see Leonard Shlain)

[> [> [> History is a tricky thing. -- CW, 11:20:07 09/18/04 Sat

We all know that except for the rare philosophical open-brawl that history usually only preserves orthodox views. Open, broad-based discussion in public form on a wide variety of topics is a very recent development. They say you can't prove a negative. Neither can you find out what ideas were floating around unless they were both published and preserved. For minority views that usually only happened when they were thought to be influential enough and dangerous enough to be fought publically.

It's fun to speculate on what things influenced legends and beliefs, but honestly, it's all very risky territory.

[> [> [> [> Very important insight! -- frisby, 10:49:38 09/20/04 Mon

Yes. I recall Nietzsche's law of nature, metaphorically described as the tree that sends out 10,000 fruits containing seeds, with the expectation that one of those seeds will actually itself become a tree like itself.

A librarian once taught me that the library itself is the archive of what's worth preserving, that most items don't survive through libraries, but 1 in 10,000 or so do.

Or again, I recall Plato's (Socrates's) discussion in the _Republic_ of how the philosopher represents the very few of the very few of the very few of the very few -- that is, the one who continues to learn after most others have stopped. Hmmm? Maybe it's like a cancer? no limits to growth and all that? unquenchable appetites? a love that knows no bounds?

Perhaps 'history' iself is but a very small sample of the much larger 'past' -- and maybe we each absorb differing amounts of that 'history' according to some absorption power (or gigabyte capacity)? But what 'if' someone could soak up the entire past? What would it mean?

nuf rambling

[> No, no, no. We're not tiny. We're vast beyond imagining. -- dmw, 08:56:24 09/14/04 Tue

No, no, no. You shouldn't listen to those astronomers. You should listen to physicists like me instead. You're not tiny or short-lived. You're huge and almost immortal.

You are a giant made up of trillions of co-operating entities. You have more cells in your body than there are humans who have ever lived. Dozens of species from mites that scavenge dead skin cells to E.Coli bacteria in your gut live nowhere else but on the human body. You aren't just an island, but an entire world for tens of thousands of their generations.

And that's just the beginning. Every one of those cells is a gargantuan complex full of intricate cellular machinery around a micron in size, which is a billion times the diameter of a proton. But even that proton is a world in itself, a world where quarks come in and fade out of existence and collide with each other every thousandth of a trillionth of a nanosecond. Only the strongest force in the universe is able to bind these particles, who are so energetic that more than 99% of the mass of matter results from their kinetic energy, not their weight.

You're not small or weak or short-lived. Instead, you're a nearly immortal giant constructed of almost inconceivably powerful forces who lives a million trillion trillion times as long as the fundamental building blocks of matter.

[> [> That was beautiful!! -- Ann, 15:06:26 09/14/04 Tue


[> [> [> It is necessity transfigured into beauty -- frisby, 20:36:24 09/23/04 Thu

To love the fate we are, according to Nietzsche, we must first transfigure necessity into beauty. The description of our place in the whole does this.

[> [> [> [> Re: It is necessity transfigured into beauty -- Ann, 07:22:02 09/24/04 Fri

I would agree with that, as there is no other choice sometimes. We can choose to let "fate" render us impotent, making us lose who we are, but the one choice we have from any situation is to learn something from it. Let it give us something unimaginable from the grief. There is always beauty in that. And beauty isn t always beautiful. The fates and the horrors will not change, but that doesn t negate our choice in it. Existential angst and fate and pain can be the beginning, not the end point I think.

This whole thread keeps reminding me of the great children s story by Dr. Seuss, Horton hears a Who. Horton, an elephant hears a noise from a speck of dust. He discovers a whole world there, other tiny creatures. Others in Horton s world want the speck to be destroyed but Horton encourages the Whos to scream for the lives; scream for their right to their existence. Great book! We may not understand all of the differences between the large and the small, but each adds to the glory of each other, and the whole.

[> [> [> [> [> no fate but what we make -- frisby, 00:05:56 09/26/04 Sun

There is no 'fate' but what we make, but, what we make becomes our 'fate' -- becomes necessary, and necessity is hard to bear, but if the necessary is made beautiful, then it is lovable. To love fate, to love our own, what we have made of ourselves, including the knot that ties us to all else that is, is Nietzsche's highest formula for greatness: and greatness is the perfect complementarity between who one is and where one is at.

Of course, one's destiny is another matter entirely.

I like Seuss's 'who' book too!

[> [> Re: No, no, no. We're not tiny. We're vast beyond imagining. -- auroramama, 09:06:09 09/15/04 Wed

Only the strongest force in the universe is able to bind these particles, who are so energetic that more than 99% of the mass of matter results from their kinetic energy, not their weight.

I didn't know that. Cool.

Ann's right, this is beautiful.

I vaguely recall someone somewhere, or perhaps several people several wheres, like that Powers of Ten picture series, pointing out that we're pretty close to middle-sized. Smallness and largeness both extend far into the unimaginable from our point of view. I don't remember whether the same is true of time, but it sounds like it, doesn't it?

[> [> [> Thanks and what it's like being in the middle -- dmw, 09:36:52 09/15/04 Wed

Ann's right, this is beautiful.

Thanks to both of you.

I vaguely recall someone somewhere, or perhaps several people several wheres, like that Powers of Ten picture series, pointing out that we're pretty close to middle-sized. Smallness and largeness both extend far into the unimaginable from our point of view.

Yes, we are about in the middle of the scale, starting from the Planck length where we think spacetime becomes discontinuous to the size of the entire universe. It's an interesting place to be, as we get to appreciate both the big and the small in equal measures.

I don't remember whether the same is true of time, but it sounds like it, doesn't it?

Actually, it seems that we're at almost the beginning of time. The universe is only around 15 billion years old (errors may be as large as a factor of 2), but stars should still be born for a few trillion years. It will take a span trillions of times as long as that for the galactic core black holes to consume the remnants of the stars, their companions, and eventually each other. The age of baryonic matter (planets, stars, us) will be over at that point.

However, if Hawking's right about Hawking radiation, then trillions of trillions of trillions of years later those giant black holes will die in final flashes of glory, leaving a universe of light and exotic non-baryonic dark matter. It might not be as barren as we first think, though. Perhaps life can exist in forms we can't imagine, made of exotic dark matter that's invisible and intangible to us, but not so ghostly to itself.

[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks and what it's like being in the middle -- Ann, 11:02:32 09/15/04 Wed

You are welcome. Even as a child I was amazed that a galaxy had the same shape as an atom. It looks like they have the same properties too. We are somewhere in between and I feel a great urge to find some poem that would work in this discussion.

And as my five year old asked a while back and could perceive, "What is beyond the wall of the ever-expanding universe?" when I was explaining the big bang to him when he asked how the universe began. The questions for the children, the poets, the philosophers and the physicists are the very same.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks and what it's like being in the middle -- Kenny, 11:24:47 09/15/04 Wed

Well, not to spoil things too much, but it's hard to say that the two scales have the same properties. Interactions between the bodies in a galaxy are mediated greatly through the force of gravity. Atoms and their constituents, however, are guided by electromagnetic and electroweak forces. Although many attempts have been (and continue to be) made, there's been no way found to unify the two.

In physics they're treated in very different ways. Einstein's relativity is used in describing incredibly large phenomena, such as galaxies. Quantum mechanics deals with extremely small particles such as atoms, leptons, and such. The two have very different rules. Again, unity is the goal of many physicists, but we're not there yet. In between you have scales where Newton's work applies.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Might the galactic year have seasons? -- frisby, 20:46:41 09/23/04 Thu

I think I read our sun/star moves above the galactic plane for 35 million years, and then through the plane for about 100,000 years, and then below for 35 million and then does it again, as it goes around the galaxy every 250 or so million years. And there might be a 3rd motion, like the earth has three, too? But how little do we really know about the possible effects of the galactic year on life on earth!

[> [> [> [> [> being in the middle timewise, & not having enough of it -- anom, 15:40:41 09/15/04 Wed

If we think of time in terms of lifespans, humans may again be in the middle, between particles that exist for infinitesimal fractions of a second &, as dmw said, galaxies that will be around for trillions of trillions of years or the universe itself, which may continue in some form for an exponentially longer time (if "time" means anything by then). As with size, we can have perspective in both directions.

Frisby, I was hoping to finish more of a reply than this before Rosh Hashanah began, but at this rate it may not be till next week. Not long in proportion, & the thread looks like it may be around awhile. And a new (solar) year is a good time for these kinds of thoughts, & for perspective.

Ann, you wrote: "We are somewhere in between and I feel a great urge to find some poem that would work in this discussion." I heard a filksong at Worldcon that would work very well. After RH, I'll try to find it on the Web & post it here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> AION -- frisby, 20:48:58 09/23/04 Thu

Its both interesting and mysterious that the greek word AION meant both eternity and lifetime, as if one's individual lifetime were somehow in some way also an eternity!

[> [> [> [> [> an early poem -- frisby, 20:43:41 09/23/04 Thu

I am a child
playing the game
of the eternal
return of the same.

[> [> [> [> Have you ever read -- Sophist, 19:17:44 09/15/04 Wed

Asimov's story "The Last Question"?

You reminded me of it with this passage:

However, if Hawking's right about Hawking radiation, then trillions of trillions of trillions of years later those giant black holes will die in final flashes of glory, leaving a universe of light and exotic non-baryonic dark matter. It might not be as barren as we first think, though. Perhaps life can exist in forms we can't imagine, made of exotic dark matter that's invisible and intangible to us, but not so ghostly to itself.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Have you ever read -- auroramama, 14:43:20 09/16/04 Thu

Oh, yes. And the suggestion that there might actually be a use for all those eons after almost everything we understand is over: collecting sufficient data for a meaningful answer.

[> [> [> [> [> Actually, I haven't heard of that story. I'll have to look for it. -- dmw, 18:24:22 09/16/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> You can find it here -- Sophist, 20:58:36 09/16/04 Thu

http://dookaloosy.dyndns.org/wail_-_thoughts_on_a_book_-_Asimov1.htm

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- dmw, 08:35:25 09/20/04 Mon

That was a fun short story. It felt a bit like an Olaf Stapledon story, though the style was clearly Asimov's.

[> [> [> [> [> galaxies and black holes and quasars -- frisby, 20:51:23 09/23/04 Thu

Discovery channel ran a show last month about a new theory that says the origin of a galaxy is a black hole that transforms into a quasar, and then eventually becomes a galaxy. Every galaxy has a black hole at its center and what we call quasars have not yet become galaxies (or something like that). I think we've not yet come to a full understanding of the universe at that scale? But it sure is interesting!

[> [> [> [> [> [> galaxies and black holes and quasars, oh my! -- anom, 08:34:35 10/12/04 Tue

If the black hole transformed into a quasar, then where did the one at the center of the galaxy that used to be that quasar come from? Was this described as a cycle, in which the black hole would eventually consume the galaxy...& later become a quasar again, & then a new galaxy, w/a new black hole at its center? Or was the same black hole already at the center of the quasar, rather than actually having turned into it, & then remained at the center of the galaxy that the quasar became? And where did the black hole come from in the 1st place?

"Every galaxy has a black hole at its center and what we call quasars have not yet become galaxies...."

Or they hadn't yet when the light we see now left them, billions of years ago. If this is what happens, maybe by now they are galaxies.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> very good question! I don't know..... but -- frisby, 10:22:52 10/12/04 Tue

I wish I had taped that show off the discovery channel. It really was so very interesting. Your question is good. If the black hole comes before the quasar (or again, if the black hole so to speak forms the quasar), and if the galaxy comes after the quasar (or again, if the quasar becomes if you will the galaxy), and if all galaxies have a black hole at the center, THEN, where is the black hole during the quasar phase? And again, your question, is the entire thing a cycle, given that the black hole at the center of galaxies eventually swallows up that galaxy! I don't know. But I find these things extrememly interesting. Maybe: there's a black hole by itself, which then transforms into a quasar (with no black hole), which then becomes a galaxy (with no black hole at the center), when then becomes a galaxy WITH a black hole at the center (one formed that is), and then (again), there's only a black hole (it having swallowed the galaxy), again. Ditto?

[> [> [> [> Near the beginning or in the middle? -- frisby, 20:42:35 09/23/04 Thu

Hannah Arendt argues that we are always in the middle, no matter what we're talking about, and problems arise from pretending we can start at the start or bring the end to an end. But especially with regard to time, I find myself sceptical about any claim that we are nearer the start than the end. It really does depend on too many things that we know not enough of. Maybe like Hawking intimates, there really is no real beginning or end.

[> [> [> the mystery of mass?. -- frisby, 20:38:52 09/23/04 Thu

I've for some time now wondered deeply about the mystery of mass. Is mass a measure of inertia or resistance to inertia? And how can the inverse of mass be number? And mainly, how does mass relate to matter?

[> [> This is just a beautiful thought. Thanks! -- Se7en, 20:26:34 09/15/04 Wed


[> [> This is good -- I need more time to think about all this.. -- frisby, 14:19:37 09/17/04 Fri

response hopefully coming in the near future

very good thoughts

beautiful

(we are giants (of course there are always those pesky dwarfs who resent us giants and so imagine up gods who are supposedly greater yet and who will at the end of time defeat us)!)

[> [> [> Re: This is good -- I need more time to think about all this.. -- Jane, 22:57:13 09/17/04 Fri

Something I read in the paper today seems relevant to this discussion: it seems that scientists have discovered a marker gene for spirituality, and that women seem to have it more often than men. The story said that this gene apparently controls some level of serotonin which induces feelings of being connected to a greater whole. I don't have the paper, so am doing this from memory. The gist was that having this gene would explain why women were more often members of churches etc. than men. I have no idea if this is backed up by masses of research or anything, but given my own personal experiences it seems plausible to me.

[> [> [> [> Spirituality (Geist?) -- frisby, 10:29:18 09/20/04 Mon

I generally agree with your sentiments; one problem with American English though is that it continually adds new words making things more and more precise. The German word "geist" as in for example Hegel's _Phenomenology of Geist_ is translated sometimes as spirit and other times as mind, and it means both intellect and intelligence as well as spirit and spiritual. In other words, in many other cultures spirituality includes heavily the connotation of intelligence but in American English it often comes across as anti-intellectual and predominantly a matter of feeling, sentiment, or soft passion. A similar thing exists with the Greek word 'kalon' which is translated either noble or beautiful. But as for the gender difference and the spirit gene idea, well, for the most part I probably agree. I follow Saxonhouse in her interpretation of Plato's _Republic_ wherein the philosopher is precisely the male who has a passion to learn the truth of the whole, and to so learns he has to incorporate and cultivate the feminine (music to complement gymnastic; philosophy to complement war; etc). Or again, as I was told as a boy, female are angels and males are devils -- but -- devils can be redeemed! Just look how Buffy helped Spike!!!

[> [> [> There, I finally responded -- nothing big but not too tiny. -- frisby, 20:53:32 09/23/04 Thu

Amor Fati is the point.

[> [> You're describing Nietzshe's Amor Fati!. -- frisby, 20:34:28 09/23/04 Thu

It finally dawned on me; you're describing Nietzsche's notion of amor fati, a celebration of natural history including especially our awareness of our interconnectedness within in it as the place that comes to know the whole in its fullest sense -- that is, philosophy. We are as giants! But one question remains: our relation to the stars!

[> [> [> Re: You're describing Nietzshe's Amor Fati!. -- dmw, 17:59:39 09/27/04 Mon

It finally dawned on me; you're describing Nietzsche's notion of amor fati, a celebration of natural history including especially our awareness of our interconnectedness within in it as the place that comes to know the whole in its fullest sense -- that is, philosophy. We are as giants! But one question remains: our relation to the stars!

Alas, it's been too long since I read Nietzche, but our relation to the stars is complex. We're made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and many other heavy elements that are only forged in the fires of their senility, once they've run out of cheap and abundant hydrogen. They warm us all the days of our lives, shining abundant energy onto our planet to warm it 300 Kelvins above the ambient temperature of the universe. They nurture us too, for almost all energy in the cycle of life comes from sunlight.

Of course, they'll also kill us, as the Sun gets brighter year by year until it will boil away the oceans a billion years from now, and when it runs out of its own hydrogen fuel, it will swell into a helium-burning red giant, burning the third planet from the Sun into a barren cinder if we don't move it out of the way to the more clement realms of the outer solar system.

[> [> [> [> But are we or they 'higher in dignity'? -- frisby, 04:51:22 09/29/04 Wed

The big question though is whether 'we' are the giants, higher in dignity than anything in the heavens (such as the Biblical account holds, or Kant too for that matter), or whether the giants are the true nobility of the galaxy, leaving us as mere bugs, or parasites, or afterthoughts, or what have you -- that is, nothing, next to the stars. We are made of stardust -- so it goes -- but in other ways we are simply 'part' of one star, our sun. That's part of what I mean by 'our relation to the stars' --

-- are the stars 'gods' or beings of the highest order, or are they just big hot rocks (as Anaxagoras said before he was exiled)

-- yes, when you start with the super-small, and come up to us, we become giants! but when you then go on up to the stars, then what? supergiants? or very little, compared to the dignity of the human (or maybe it's the human per se which is so overvalued?)

I of course 'want' to be refuted.

[> [> 99% of the mass of matter? Please clarify?!?.Please? -- frisby, 11:47:52 09/27/04 Mon

I'd love to hear more about how the kinetic energy of the sub-atomic particles accounts for 99% of the mass of matter, instead of their weight. There's something about mass that has always remained very mysterious to me. I was told once by a physicist that I could divide my weight by 32 and that would give me my mass, and that mass would not change if went to the moon or mars or anywhere. Do you really understand this stuff?

[> [> [> Re: 99% of the mass of matter? Please clarify?!?.Please? -- dmw, 17:52:19 09/27/04 Mon

I'd love to hear more about how the kinetic energy of the sub-atomic particles accounts for 99% of the mass of matter, instead of their weight. There's something about mass that has always remained very mysterious to me. I was told once by a physicist that I could divide my weight by 32 and that would give me my mass, and that mass would not change if went to the moon or mars or anywhere. Do you really understand this stuff?

The Mass of Nucleons

Nucleons are composed of three quarks each and have a mass of about 938 MeV (don't worry about what the units mean--it's trillioniths of trillionths of a kilogram.) Up quarks have charge +2/3 and down quarks have charge -1/3 so neutrons have a valence quark content of "up down down" (so they're neutral) while protons have a quark content of "up up down" (so they have net charge +1.)

Pions are another type of particle consisting of a quark and an antiquark. A pi+ has a quark content of "up antidown" and only masses about 140 MeV. Antiparticles have the same mass as their matter partners, so the pion mass tells us that the combined mass of an up and a down quark is 140MeV. The problem is if the mass of an up plus a down is only 140 MeV, how can adding the mass of another up quark give a mass of 938 MeV?

In fact, our best measurements reveal that up quarks have a mass of about 5 MeV, while down quarks have a mass of about 3 MeV, which only gives you 13 MeV of the 938 MeV mass of a proton or about 1%. So where does the extra mass come from?

The Mystery of Mass

Mass historically has been quite mysterious. See, Newton has these two equations, his 2nd law of motion about inertia:

(1) F = ma

and the other his law of universal gravitation:

(2) F = G m1 m2 / r2

Why does inertia have anything to do with gravity? Newton offers no explanation and no one could come up with one until Einstein produced general relativity in 1915, which unifies the concepts in a much more satisfying matter through his concept of geometrodynamics, which essentially eliminates gravitational mass in favor of a single concept of inertial mass which interacts through curving spacetime.

Putting it Together

General relativity not only unified inertial and gravitational mass, it also unifies matter and energy in much the same way that it unifies space and time. Energy curves spacetime in the same way that matter does, but we generally don't have enough energy in everyday objects compared to their mass to notice the effect. Even a transonic jet has a kinetic energy less than a millionith of a percent of its equivalent rest mass energy.

However, quarks are moving near the speed of light under the effect of forces a trillion times as powerful as electromagnetism. As an aside, the force that holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus is actually a much weaker secondary side effect of the strong nuclear force that binds the quarks inside each proton and neutron. Fusion and fission bombs and power demonstrate the strength of a not terribly efficient use of that secondary effect.

Quarks have a kinetic energy equal to 100X their equivalent rest mass energy, so we do notice the effective mass of their energy. Since all that energy is bound up inside the proton and neutron as movement we can't see over incredibly tiny volumes, we treat protons and neutrons as particles in their own right with masses that sum up the total energy and mass contained therein.

[> [> [> [> Great Post! Sincere Thanks! (long rambling response) -- frisby, 12:18:40 09/29/04 Wed

See if I ve got it right. Imagine a marble attached to a string which I swing around and around very very fast, and I don t stay in one plane but move so as to cover an entire sphere. If I do this fast enough (and assuming I m standing in one spot at zero gravity or whatever) then an observer sees what appears to be a solid sphere. But the only real mass there is the solid marble. And then again, that marble is also actually only a very very smaller particle, again masquerading as a sphere.

Or again, the cathode ray on my TV shoots at one spot of my TV screen, a screen that is composed of, say, 1000 spots, and it tells that spot what to do, and then it goes and tells the other 999 spots, and then it does this all over again and again, say 30 or so times a second. The observer, me, sees what seems to be a full picture in motion, but actually there s only one little spot being activated at any one instant.

Is that it? Is what we mean by mass really an illusion; it s really an awful lot of energy (E/c2 = mass) masquerading as mass? Solidity is relative? But there s still inertial mass which interacts through curving spacetime wow!

Einstein unifies inertial mass and gravitational mass, but also space and time, and also energy and matter. I ve read your post several times now and I think much of it is beyond me but it s simply amazing, the little I get. I appreciate your post thanks! I m reading Art and Physics by Leonard Shlain right now, and hopefully he ll help me get a bit clearer on Einstein (he says studying Picasso can help).

Generally, I will admit I doubt the truth of light being the limit to speed, and if I m wrong there, then the extreme distances involved must be wrong. Surely the universe can not be so mysterious that the fastest thing there is takes forever just to get from here to there (for example, 100 million light years across the milky way). I wonder if the relative difference between the very small particles and the vast volumes they occupy is similar with regard to size and volume? Something seems wrong with space and time with regard to distance and speed but maybe Einstein s unification clears up those unimaginable problems?

F = ma = Gm2/r2 so
G = L3/mt2 or 1/dt2 (d for density)

And if e=mc2 then is pressure = density c2? (that is, a little bit of density implies a lot of pressure, just as a little bit of mass implies a lot of energy)

And with regard to G = 1/dt2 I ll add that I don t really understand that time-squared idea (32 feet per second per second, and all that). It seems that that idea of understanding something in terms of the square of time is the key to the modern mathematical mind! (implying calculus and such)

But I don t really understand it! Something about it is non-experience-able or non-human or something abstract and only graspable by analogy, maybe.

And Hawking s new thing: where time must be greater than the square root of (Gh/c5) where G is the gravitational constant, and h the Max Planck thing (action? ML2/T), meaning the Big Bang could not be the beginning but that there is at least this amount of time before the bang? And that corollary, where density = c5/hG2, what s the real significance of that?

And how do I understand that moment of inertia (I = ML2), which algebraically means it also equals the product of action and time, or energy and time squared, or power and time cubed? Those seem like four very important moments.

Are these kinds of things our new scripture? I think it s time we had a new new testament codifying our wonderful new religion of modern science. We would have to include Darwin and Freud, and Descartes and Einstein, and maybe Nietzsche too?

So, matter is like energy that is frozen in time via the mystery of mass which wrinkles up space? And we re here in the middle between the atoms and the stars, the oceans of energy and the galaxies of time, the infinitesimals of motion and the transfinitude of inertia between the infinity of the interior and the totality of the exterior, the .

But what is thought? And how can it grasp any of this? What does it really mean to be ?

Enuf of this mad rambling! Thanks for responding and providing me the opportunity to think about it all. By the way, do you think the notion that the sun is a star is quite novel (as I m claiming), or suspected by many for a long time but just not proven (as another poster claims)? And if I m right, and something that simple was only recently realized, what else in a similar way is perhaps right before our noses?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great Post! Sincere Thanks! (long rambling response) -- dmw, 17:01:17 09/29/04 Wed

See if I ve got it right. Imagine a marble attached to a string which I swing around and around very very fast, and I don t stay in one plane but move so as to cover an entire sphere. If I do this fast enough (and assuming I m standing in one spot at zero gravity or whatever) then an observer sees what appears to be a solid sphere. But the only real mass there is the solid marble. And then again, that marble is also actually only a very very smaller particle, again masquerading as a sphere.

Or again, the cathode ray on my TV shoots at one spot of my TV screen, a screen that is composed of, say, 1000 spots, and it tells that spot what to do, and then it goes and tells the other 999 spots, and then it does this all over again and again, say 30 or so times a second. The observer, me, sees what seems to be a full picture in motion, but actually there s only one little spot being activated at any one instant.

Is that it? Is what we mean by mass really an illusion; it s really an awful lot of energy (E/c2 = mass) masquerading as mass? Solidity is relative?

Yes, that's it. Your marble image is a great visual picture of the inside of supposedly solid matter, and yes, solidity is relative. We can see how much the effect of physics changes just with a little bit of scale change by watching insects, who can walk on water, carry spheres of water without containers in their appendages, and when they run into a solid wall probably feel more like you would running into a strong but slightly elastic mesh.

Generally, I will admit I doubt the truth of light being the limit to speed, and if I m wrong there, then the extreme distances involved must be wrong. Surely the universe can not be so mysterious that the fastest thing there is takes forever just to get from here to there (for example, 100 million light years across the milky way). I wonder if the relative difference between the very small particles and the vast volumes they occupy is similar with regard to size and volume?

I wish c wasn't the speed limit, but lots of oddness falls out of physics if Einstein's wrong and it's not. I've worked at huge particle accelerators which we push power plants worth of power into subatomic particles to get them another few parts in a million closer to c, so it's clearly not a limit that we can break directly or obviously.

Interestingly, although stars are far apart--the Sun is 5 or so light seconds across, but the next star is 4 light years away from it (around 10million times the Sun's diameter away)--galaxies cluster close together relative to their size. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across, but nearby galaxies are only a few million light years away, a mere factor of 10, and other galactic clusters are only around 10million light years away, just another factor of 10.

I've got to run now, with a conference to go to tomorrow, but I'll try to post more later.

[> [> [> [> [> [> One Point! -- frisby, 04:05:19 10/01/04 Fri

According to the most recent cosmogonical theories of the cosmos, there is a period of 'inflation' after the original big bang explosion/expansion. Does it make sense to speak of a 'rate' with regard to this 'inflation' and if so then must not that rate exceed the speed of light? If not, then how did the universe get as big as it is in the time that has so far elapsed (14 billion years give or take). If the inflationary expansion occurs at the speed of light then the size of the universe has a radius of about 84 billion trillion miles (6 trillion miles (a light year) times 14 billion years)? Is 84 sextillion miles the estimated size of the universe? Did 'inflation' occur at the speed of 'c' or was it less or more or does the question make no sense given that it is spacetime itself that inflates/expands? Again, the extreme distances involved (4 light years to the nearest star?) and the limit to speed (6 trillion miles in any one year) just don't go to make an understandable universe -- something seems amiss. That's all rhetorical of course, as I'm not advocating science change its positions because of something so nebulous as 'our' lack of understanding. But to repeat, does this 'inflation' have a rate? greater or lesser or equal to c?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rate of Inflation -- dmw, 17:56:46 10/02/04 Sat

Yes, the universe expanded at a speed faster than the speed of light during the inflationary epoch. However, note that no thing or information was travelling faster than the speed of light between two points during inflation. The two points were just getting further away from each other. The key to relativity can be found in the limit that information cannot be transmitted at superluminal velocities. There are apparent violations of the speed of light, such as Einstein's famous EPR paradox, but no information (defined scientifically, not casually) is transmitted during any of the ones that we've examined experimentally.

As for the size of the universe, the horizon is 15 billion light years away, but since the universe expanded faster than c during the inflationary epoch, much of the universe is outside the horizon and light has no way of reaching us from that. Actually, some observations suggest a current accelerating rate of expansion, under which galactic clusters will continue to drift apart until we can only see the Local Group.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great Post! Back at you...a matter for thought -- frisby, 11:31:55 10/04/04 Mon

So spacetime expanded during inflation, not light (meaning energy, mass, information and matter). All light exists within a sphere of radius of 15 billion lightyears (or 90 sextillion miles) and outside that sphere is the rest of the universe, its size unknown and even at this time unknowable. Did that inflationary expansion rate (which was faster than the speed of light) remain constant or did it also accelerate? The current rate of expansion of the sphere of light is accelerating today, some claim, due to dark energy (which comprises 73% of the sphere, and which somehow or other runs counter to gravity, although how Einsteinian gravity fits in here is obscure). And if that acceleration continues, and given another zillion years (that s ten to power of one thousand) then all that will exist will be nothing (maybe a proton or two here and there infinitely apart) or so I ve read. Stephen Hawking s big point today, that information can escape from a black hole, will likely be linked to this somehow or other. The EPR paradox assumes some sort of transluminal linkage (wormhole) or hyperspatial transaction, comparable at the human scale to telepathy or clairvoyance that is, how can one particle, of a special pair, know things about the other regardless of time or distance? Sounds like a happily married old couple? How can that paradoxical link be explained? I ve read some very mysterious explanations. It s beyond experimental verification at this time, as you say, though. The really big thing though comes from reflection on the matter of information, especially its transportation, which we might call thought ---

----- maybe thought really does rule the universe like magic does in the Buffyverse? But now we re into Bohm s implicate order?

[> The Official Answer At Last -- frisby, 04:25:15 09/23/04 Thu

An Emeritus Professor from the Harvard Observatory has finally provided the answer: although Bruno suspected the sun was a star it is Descartes (primarily in his _Principles_) who gets the official credit for publishing the fact that there is no essential diference between the sun and the stars. It was not proven though until around 1800.

[> [> small change -- frisby, 11:40:22 09/27/04 Mon

I think it was later than 1800, about 1850, when Bessel used a spectroscope to show the light and distance from the stars, matches the light and distance from our sun, thus confirming the hypothesis that the sun 'is' a star. Whether Bruno was burnt by the Vatican for saying the sun is a star is not confirmed, and again, Descartes gets the offical credit in his _Principles_ for stating his assumption that the sun should be counted as one of the stars. Most amazing to me is the fact that few people know this! It was very interesting researching this for the past few months, and finally finding out the answer. Oh, one last thing, Anaxagorgas was threatened with execution and then exiled for saying the sun was a hot rock, but best I can determine, he never quite made the real leap of insight.

[> Closing up this thread ... -- frisby, 15:11:48 10/08/04 Fri

I think this thread has run its course and is soon due for the archive. Thanks to everyone who posted and commented on the various sub-threads -- something were enlightening indeed! Bottom line? I guess the sun is indeed only one of the many stars -- who've thought? It's still my favorite one though.

... and I still think very very few of the people who have ever lived on earth even susposed it much less knew it, which makes all of us quite special. We know its secret -- it's not unique to the universe -- it's a star, and we are in some ways 'higher' than the stars, given that we are primarily made of stardust. And as I learnt, the complexity 'below' us stretching down from us to the sub-atomic levels, and the vast intervals of time involved, trillions of trillions of nano-seconds, make of almost in a way as if gods.

Tara knew it all ....

[> [> whoa! hold that open another minute! or 2.... -- anom, 19:54:23 10/09/04 Sat

I've been working on this too long to let the thread close w/out it. I know, my timing sucks, but I haven't had a lot of time lately. And the post isn't quite finished! So this is really just part 1. I'll need to reread some of what you said about nihilism to write the rest of it. For now, here's what I've got--I hope you think it's worth continuing the thread for:

"Is the sun 'really' a star?"

I'd say yes, given how we define "sun" & "star" & what we now know about them. Especially now that planets have been discovered orbiting other stars. Zarathustra/Zoroaster's words are pretty amazing, considering he lived 2500 years ago! But the way he meant & understood them may have been very diff't. from a "modern human's" understanding--is there anything in his writings that gives a clue? [OK, I wrote that before I realized you were talking about what Nietzsche attributed to Zarathustra in his writings, not about Zarathustra's own statement. Why do you think Nietzsche attributed this knowledge to Zarathustra?]

"But more importantly, of all the people to ever gaze into the sky during the day or night, of 'all' of them 'ever' how many or what percent realized the sun 'is' a star?"

Well, it's not exactly intuitive, is it? If any of us living today hadn't been taught that it is, how would we realize it? If anything, the moon looks a lot more like the sun (from Earth) than the stars do, & that fact may even have served as a distraction from the latter comparison.

"As for who was first, I think it's Herschel in combination with his younger sister but I'm not 100% yet."

It's hard to believe this isn't an astronomical discovery commonly taught in schools. Wonder why not?

"As for the galactic year (250 million earth years), what if there are something comparable to seasons???"

Here I feel I'm on a little firmer ground. Seasons on Earth result from the tilt of its axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. I don't think there's anything comparable to the sun acting on our galaxy as a whole that would affect stars & their planets differently depending on where they are in the galactic rotation. However, I did once read a science fiction book (& I can't find any info on it now--can someone out there help me out? apparently it's not Fred Hoyle's [yes, big-bang vs. steady-state Fred Hoyle] The Black Cloud) whose premise was that a huge cloud existed in space whose effect was to suppress intelligence--& that the solar system had spent the last 100 million years or so passing through this cloud, so humans evolved to our current intelligence levels in spite of it...& then our system leaves the cloud. The result: a sudden increase in intelligence among all life that has any--the 1st instance mentioned in the book is a rabbit figuring out how to get out of a trap. (But there's no discussion later on how predator-prey relations change, which could've been interesting....) Then there's a young boy who finds himself working his way toward differential calculus, a retarded man who wonders for the 1st time how far away the stars are...& all the adults of normal intelligence who are suddenly super-geniuses (think Fred, at least). So all kinds of advances start to be made; I'm pretty sure there's a concerted effort to get out to space, but it's been a very long time since I read the book, so I could be remembering wrong. What I'd rather forget is the unfortunate plotline in which the only prominent woman character--in fact I think she's the only one at all--can't deal w/her newly increased intelligence, tries to kill herself, succeeds only in causing brain damage...& settles down happily w/the formerly retarded man I mentioned earlier...oh, yuccchhh, & skeeve thinks women are treated badly in the Torah? OK, I'm gonna go back to trying to forget that again.... Some digression, huh? But it's the only thing I've seen that comes close to any concept of a mechanism anything like galactic seasons.

"But for us 'theoretical' types it matters a great great great deal to know the sun is only a star, not radically different than any of the other billion billion stars in the heavens."

Does it diminish the importance of the sun, or enhance that of the other stars? After all, some of them may also support life on some of their planets...which may even include philosophers! The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how rare the conditions that make life possible are: the right kind of star; a reasonably round orbit around it, & at the right distance--oh, & in the right part of its galaxy (both star systems & galaxies have narrow "habitable zones"); another planet in the system big enough to pull in most of the objects that might hit the candidate planet; the right mix of chemicals in the atmosphere; & most likely multiple factors we have no idea of yet (for all we know, that axial tilt is a requirement, & even a couple of major meteor strikes might have happened on Earth at the right times to allow the kind of life that could develop intelligence to flourish, & the chance of the right timing might be very small). So the likelihood of intelligent life's evolving in the universe may be so low that the entire universe, w/its trillions upon trillions of galaxies & all the stars & planets in them, had to exist in order to realize the minuscule probability that even 1 planet of 1 sun would develop life that reached the point where it could wonder about these things. From the perspective that the whole universe, w/its amazing history, serves as our support system, that makes us stunningly important, not insignificant.

"As for the discovery of the galaxy, and our place in it, and the other galaxies, etc., well that's just plain mind-blowing, and hardly anyone alive today even dares to really think about it."

Mind-blowing for sure, but I don't understand why thinking about it is something one has to "dare" to do.

"Like Nietzsche said...imagine some observer standing on a star far away watching the earth.... They see a little light flash on and then go off and they say, hmmm, well, that was humanity. We are but a blip, the planet is but a speck of dust (unless like Kant you think the moral law within raises our dignity far above anything in the heavens, or even above the heavens themselves)..."

I don't know that much about Kant, & I don't really think of it in terms of "dignity"; I wonder if it's the moral sense itself or the capacity to have it that raises our status or our importance. Likewise, the capacity to understand (to the extent we do, & may in the future) the universe & its history is as mind-blowing as what we understand, possibly to the point of balancing that knowledge.

I have to wonder about the nature of Nietzsche's "observer." Who would be around long enough to see humanity's existence as a mere blip? Gee, sounds kinda like the God Nietzsche claims is dead.... And as dmw said, from another perspective, we're vast, which means our planet is even more so.

"How can humanity continue realizing their entire existence is but an instant and the planet itself but a speck of dust???????

how? how? how? how?"

Sometime in the 1970s, the 1st 6 planets in our solar system were aligned (more or less) in the order of their distance from the sun. I remember standing in my parents' yard & seeing Venus in 1 direction & Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn in the other. Mercury was supposed to be visible for a short time after sunset, & 1 night I went someplace w/a clear horizon & looked for it. Looking between Venus & the horizon, where the sun's light was fading, I suddenly had the feeling of standing on a planet looking for another planet out in space. The feeling of immensity & depth was awesome. And I felt completely centered. Yes, the solar system--not to mention the universe--utterly dwarfed me, but I had my place in it, & it was clear to me that I belonged there, was meant to be there. (Purpose is a separate question. I think people tend to think on a lifetime scale: "What is my purpose in life?" as though it were going to be the same for our whole life. More likely it changes w/the years, days, & even moments. Many people also think in terms of having a purpose separate from everyone else's. Like our own small place in the universe, we may each take small parts in various purposes along w/many others. For example, my purpose at this moment is to respond to your questions & play my part in expanding the discussion in this thread that's taken on a life of its own, playing off other replies & bringing in my individual knowledge & experience. Very soon my purpose will be to sleep....)

I used the word "awesome" in that last paragraph. Why do you think humans have the ability to feel awe? What possible purpose could it have served in our evolution? What survival value might it have? Does it help deal w/"realizing [our] entire existence is but an instant and the planet itself but a speck of dust," or does it just make us feel small?

[> [> [> Re: whoa! hold that open another minute! or 2.... -- dmw, 15:30:41 10/11/04 Mon

Here I feel I'm on a little firmer ground. Seasons on Earth result from the tilt of its axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. I don't think there's anything comparable to the sun acting on our galaxy as a whole that would affect stars & their planets differently depending on where they are in the galactic rotation. However, I did once read a science fiction book...

I also can't think of anything comparable, which would cause regular differences in the galactic year. However, there is that dwarf galaxy that's colliding on the other side of the disk right now, which will likely result in a starburst (a huge increase in the rate of star formation due to changes in stellar gas densities from the collision.) It's going to be an exciting few megayears over there, but it'll all be over by the time Sol arrives on that side.

Thinking of SF, how about Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, where the galaxy is divided into different zones which determine the level of intelligence/technology possible? We live in the Slow Zone, bound to the speed of light, but the book is set in the Beyond, where the speed of light can be exceeded in certain limited areas, and beyond them is the Transcend, where incomprehensible transcendent aliens dwell and in the core are the Unthinking Depths, where no intelligence can exist.

the more we realize how rare the conditions that make life possible are:

Of course, we are a bit limited in our definition of life. I'm not sure that we'd recognize our descendent species as living entities, as they're likely to be robotic or intangible software entities or one of many other exotic forms. Our primary limitation in finding life is our incredibly limited time scale. Even if life had existed on a nearby planet, a mammalian species tends to only last around 5 million years which is about 0.1% the time life has existed on Earth. Our chance of being here at the right time is miniscule unless intelligent species survive much longer, but it might be that they only last a few millenia too.

I also like Stephen Baxter's idea of dark matter-based life. The bright disk of the Milky Way makes up only a tiny fraction of the galaxy's actual spherical volume and mass. The rest is dark matter, which as a physicist, I admit seems unlikely a substrate for life, but we know very little about it experimentally. On the other hand, the physics of plasmas and degenerate matter offer some interesting stably changing combinations of states that may offer more room for life on the stars than exists on their planets.

[> [> [> [> putting together 2 of your statements raises a question -- anom, 21:23:43 10/11/04 Mon

"However, there is that dwarf galaxy that's colliding on the other side of the disk right now..."

"The bright disk of the Milky Way makes up only a tiny fraction of the galaxy's actual spherical volume and mass. The rest is dark matter...."

In fact, a galaxy's dark matter extends out to multiple times the diameter of its visible disk, right? So that collision has been going on for a much longer time than it looks like, right?

Is there any indication of the interaction of the dark matter of 2 colliding galaxies? If 2 galaxies appear to be "approaching" collision, their dark matter must be already colliding, or at least overlapping. Is the junction between them at all a promising place to look in the effort to detect dark matter? Or do we just have no idea what to look for there? Hmm...come to think of it, for all we know, that dwarf galaxy's dark matter may have already reached us!

OK, that's more than 1 question. Plus, there's some other stuff:

"Thinking of SF, how about Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, where the galaxy is divided into different zones which determine the level of intelligence/technology possible?"

I haven't read it--sounds good! The book I referred to probably came out before Vinge was ever published, though.

"I also like Stephen Baxter's idea of dark matter-based life."

Do we know enough about dark matter to have a basis for even imagining what life based on it might be like?

[> [> [> [> [> Very Interesting Question -- frisby, 11:16:59 10/12/04 Tue

What is the result of the collision and interaction of the dark matter of the dwarf galaxy and the milky way? Could there be an effect on us? New stars form as a result? There's so much we don't know. Ain't it amazing. I wonder what it means to be. And what 'is' time?

[> [> [> [> [> Dwarf Galaxy Collision with Milky Way -- dmw, 15:14:14 10/12/04 Tue

In fact, a galaxy's dark matter extends out to multiple times the diameter of its visible disk, right? So that collision has been going on for a much longer time than it looks like, right?

Is there any indication of the interaction of the dark matter of 2 colliding galaxies? If 2 galaxies appear to be "approaching" collision, their dark matter must be already colliding, or at least overlapping. Is the junction between them at all a promising place to look in the effort to detect dark matter? Or do we just have no idea what to look for there? Hmm...come to think of it, for all we know, that dwarf galaxy's dark matter may have already reached us!

It's almost certain that the galaxy's dark matter halos are already overlapping, as the Milky Way is already tearing streamers of stars and gas off the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy (SagDEG). An article on the SagDEG collision estimates that SagDEG has approximately 10% the visible diameter of the Milky Way (though only 0.1% the visible mass and estimated 0.01% the total mass) and is 50,000-80,000 light years away from the solar system. The Milky Way's dark matter halo extends 2-3 times the diameter of the bright matter, so if SagDEG has a similar pattern, its dark matter halo would have a diameter of 20,000-30,000 ly, which wouldn't be large enough to reach the solar system.

As for detecting dark matter, we generally do it indirectly by measuring the mass of a galaxy as indicated by its angular momentum and gravitational effects on other nearby objects. There are two major types of dark matter: WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) like neutrinos, billions of which passed through you as read this sentence so they're clearly hard to detect, and MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) such as planets and dim stars (brown dwarfs and old white dwarfs and neutron stars that are too cool to be visible).

We can look for MACHOs through their gravitational lensing effects, which can cause two identical images of a star or galaxy to appear on a picture taken through a telescope. WIMPs are closer to my area of study, but it takes tons of heavy water to see a few neutrinos a year, mostly from the Sun. I don't know of a way to measure WIMPs in the dark matter halo. However, the discovery that neutrinos have a tiny mass does indicate that a large portion of the total mass of the universe is in the form of neutrinos.

"Thinking of SF, how about Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, where the galaxy is divided into different zones which determine the level of intelligence/technology possible?"

I haven't read it--sounds good! The book I referred to probably came out before Vinge was ever published, though.

Likely so. Vinge is one of the best SF authors, though he's only got 3 novels in print. He also wrote what was perhaps the first cyberspace story "True Names and Other Dangers."

"I also like Stephen Baxter's idea of dark matter-based life."

Do we know enough about dark matter to have a basis for even imagining what life based on it might be like?

Baxter assumes supersymmetry works and bases his dark matter life on the supersymmetric partner particles that we haven't yet detected because they're too massive and weakly interacting to be produced in current accelerators. We've had a long time to develop unification theories and their consequences, so they're fairly well developed, but we don't know anything about them experimentally except that they're identical to the Standard Model of particle physics below energies of 1TeV.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dwarf Galaxy Collision with Milky Way -- skeeve, 08:25:13 10/15/04 Fri

Neutrinos aren't WIMPs.
Weakly Interacting (yes)
Massive (no)
Particles (yes)

It is suspected that WIMP interactions produce neutrinos
that might be detectable.

It's worth noting that if the moon were 2 lightyears away,
it would be dark matter.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Moon as dark matter? Surely this is wrong! Help? -- frisby, 07:41:37 10/18/04 Mon

Is this right? The moon would be considered dark matter if further away from us? Simply because it does not generate light of its own? Is this what is meant by dark matter? If so I was way off. What about dark energy? I thought dark matter was much more mysterious than simply those rocks or particles that don't generate light? Is dark energy simply energy that is not kinetic?

I don't really know what is meant by 'dark' in the phrases dark matter and dark energy (much less dark space or dark time). I thought I had some idea, but now I'm not sure of that even.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Moon as dark matter? Surely this is wrong! Help? -- dmw, 09:00:23 10/18/04 Mon

Yes, essentially all dark matter means is that we can't see it. Some of the stuff we can't see is fairly ordinary, like planets and cold, dim stars, but other parts of it are less ordinary objects like neutrinos or possible supersymmetric partner particles.

As for neutrinos, the term WIMP was coined when neutrinos were massless to the best of our experimental data; however, since that date, neutrinos have been discovered to have mass, so they're massive in the sense of having mass (if not nearly as massive as supersymmetric partners and such) and if we divide all dark matter into WIMPs and MACHOs, the only category they could fit into is WIMPs, though perhaps cosmologists have added a third category since they became aware of neutrino mass.

On the other hand, dark energy is fairly exotic: it's a universal field that creates a negative pressure, resulting in the accelerating expansion of spacetime. It's used to account for much of the missing mass of the universe (the curvature of the universe is such that it's essentially flat, which requires more mass that we can observe). A matter dominated universe shouldn't have an accelerating expansion, and dark energy provide for that too. Dark energy is commonly derived from the cosmological constant of Einstein's equation, but there are other potential sources.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That helps greatly! Thanks again. -- frisby, 10:17:39 10/18/04 Mon

I didn't know 'dark matter' included such things as rocks that don't omit light. I assume of course that most of dark matter is the smaller type of stuff like neutrinos. Dark energy creates negative pressure? Very interesting! I think of energy understood of the space it occupies 'as' pressure (E/L3 = P). Or again, that just as E = mc2 so P = Dc2 where D is Density, such that much (by a factor of c2) pressure is required to create density. But I suspect this is more poetry than physics.

Were you by the way at ATPOBTVS Chicago meetup over the 4 of July?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> so does that mean... -- anom, 22:41:43 10/18/04 Mon

...that dark energy is not related to energy as we usually understand it in the same way as dark matter is related to...what would you call it? Visible matter, in the sense that it's visible by producing its own light (in whatever part of the spectrum), not just by reflecting an outside light source? And does dark energy have a different relation to either kind of matter than the familiar E = mc2 of "normal" energy? Do we have any idea what relation dark energy has to matter--in the sense of a corresponding equation rather than of the accelerating effect it has on matter?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> These are very good questions! -- frisby, 13:23:54 10/20/04 Wed

I can't answer your 'very' good questions. I read that dark energy is responsible for the expansion of the universe now accelerating. From one million to one billion the expansion was slowing, but from one billion through today (14 billion) it as been accelerating. Dark energy sounds to me like a cosmological variant of Nietzsche's will to power. I don't know if the accleration will begin to slow at some future time -- or what. I'm quite impressed with the knowledge of our physicist friend (dmw). Was he at the Chicago meeting? Dark matter creates negative pressure (is that like the pressure that creates diamond or the one causing a balloon to expand? Dark energy counteracts the force of gravity caused by the total mass of the universe which tends to stop the expansion and even (if great enough) bring it all back to a black hole. The 'dark' in 'dark matter' refers to the fact (I recently learned) that it creates no light or energy of its own, like the moon, as you suggested (of course all matter -- or is it just mass -- is actually a kind of frozen energy), so perhap the 'dark' in 'dark energy' refers to something along the lines of kinetic vs potential energy? And I still wonder if those other 7 dimensions of string theory which are all curled up in the micro world might not be thought of as 'dark' space? I wonder if our sun has anything to do with dark energy?

questions questions questions -- I'm going to read my "Science News" weekly which just arrived -- maybe I'll get lucky (but as Nietzsche said: "Cheers for Physics!").

[> [> [> [> Wow! A Dwarf Galaxy? Colliding Now? Wow! -- frisby, 11:14:27 10/12/04 Tue

I didn't know that. I've read we're on a collision course with our closest neighbor galaxy Andromeda. And new stars will form as a result? For a physicist, you sure know a lot of interesting things about astrophysics! (that's meant to be a compliment)

I think that's the question of the time for us, namely, what our descendent species will be! Are we becoming software, or robots, or or or. Nietzsche ways we will become something that looks back at us like we look at the other apes. We will become much stronger and healthier but perhaps more ruthless and more cruel too. He describes us as the one who will say to the rivers "Thus shall you run" meaning we will dominate the planet in many ways ....

The bright disk of the milky way galaxy as only a tiny fraction of the mass and volume of the actual galaxy, which includes much more dark matter -- this still blows me away. But what is LIFE? an acccident? nothing out of the ordinary? something merely temporary? and is thought dependent on life?

Thanks again for an amazing post. Your piece on the immense complexity and vast time scales leading up to our existence (subatomic particles and nanoseconds and all that) is a great response to nihilism. I've shown it to a few others. "We are not mere specks of dust and only a blip of a moment" we are as giants!

Thanks again.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow! A Dwarf Galaxy? Colliding Now? Wow! -- dmw, 15:22:12 10/12/04 Tue

I've read we're on a collision course with our closest neighbor galaxy Andromeda. And new stars will form as a result?

That's true too, though it will be a few billion years before we collide with Andromeda. If one of the resulting starbursts was in the solar neighborhood, it would brighten the night sky tremendously as dozens of new stars would be born nearby. As an alternative, the solar system might be ejected from the collision, leaving us in the deep darkness of the intergalactic void.

I think that's the question of the time for us, namely, what our descendent species will be! Are we becoming software, or robots, or or or. Nietzsche ways we will become something that looks back at us like we look at the other apes. We will become much stronger and healthier but perhaps more ruthless and more cruel too. He describes us as the one who will say to the rivers "Thus shall you run" meaning we will dominate the planet in many ways ....

Yes, this is one of the most interesting questions to ponder. I think a diversification is almost inevitable in the long term, even if we don't leave Earth. Baxter's _Diaspora_ is an interesting picture of such a future, told from the point of view of a software descendent of homo sapiens.

Thanks again for an amazing post. Your piece on the immense complexity and vast time scales leading up to our existence (subatomic particles and nanoseconds and all that) is a great response to nihilism. I've shown it to a few others. "We are not mere specks of dust and only a blip of a moment" we are as giants!

You're very welcome and thanks for the appreciation.

[> [> [> okay -- one or two more minutes? and a few more thoughts? -- frisby, 11:03:00 10/12/04 Tue

I'm responding to your post, hit or miss, in a desultory fashion.

According to Heidegger, nihilism is the latest form of 'truth' in the 'epochs of the transformations of being' -- but then 'technology' is a form of truth too, coexisting with nihilism, the two wrapped up together in some sort of mysterious way.

Nietzsche explicitly says why he used the original Zoroaster/Zarathustra as his mouthpiece. He says because the original Zarathustra is the original founder of the dominant western religions today, influencing Judaism heavily after the Babylonian captivity, radicaly transforming the more original Hebraic religion which was centered on Moses, with little concern for any other prophets, into one that is associated with the Pharisees, focused on a messiah or new prophet yet to come, and in some quarters, on a judgment day. The original Zarathustra taught the metaphysical significance of the battle of good and evil on a cosmic scale, on the linearity of time, and the end of time in a final battle where good triumphs over evil. These teachings come into Judaism after the capitivity, and Christianity makes them central, and they carry through into Islam too. So, repeating, Nietzsche uses 'Zoroaser' because HIS Zoroaster/Zarathustra comes back to correct those fundamental mistakes. Good and evil remain the greatest power on earth but they are no longer cosmic. Time becomes more circular than linear. And his "Great Noon" replaces the Judgment Day of the western religions (the noon remaining a judgment day of sorts, but one quite different, it's central concern being the ..... (but that's the book I yet want to write)

Children are not born with insight concerning the sun being a star, and when they are told the astronishment they exhibit is itself amazing (no.... really....? aha!)

On the moon, it simply amazes me that the sun (being the distance it is from us, and the size it is) and the moon (being the distances it is, and size) SEEM to our human eyes at this time to be almost exactly the same size -- what a coincidence? If we were further from the sun or closer, or if the moon were (and it once was, and will be), then their size would seem quite different...so ain't it amazing they seem to be the same size????

Also, on the moon, according to Leonard Shlain, the moon really "is" the ultimate mystery in a funny way, because it was the moon that taught the female the secret of deep time, providing her the new faculty of planning, which she taught the male, and together they rose to dominance over the planet. Yea! for the moon.

Yes, I wonder so so much why Descartes is not taught as the one who first hypothesized that the sun is only another star -- this amazing fact continues to amaze me. I don't believe people throughout the centuries much less the millenia had any idea that the sun was not simply unique. Why do you think this is not taught? Is it not true? We hear of Copernicus but not Descartes (who officially gets the credit, I was told by an astronomer of repute).

Is the plane of our solar system 'exactly' equal to the plane of the milky way galaxy? There is no comparable tilt? Or maybe we just don't know?

Fred Hoyle's _Black Cloud_ sounds very interesting. I make check it out (although I used to read a lot of science fiction I for some reason turned away to non-fiction and it's been a long while, but it does sound like a good read...)

As for Skeeve's thought about women in the Torah.... I read Hegel's master/slave dialectic (from his Phenomenology of Mind -- a very very famous and important part of the history of political philosophy) in terms of male/female. They meet and only the male is willing to fight to the death so the female enters bondage under her new lord. But over history the way of the male fails (the way of recognition as a means of acknowledgment self-destructs) and the way of the female (recognition through what she creates, which in turn acknowledges her freedom and wisdom) succeeds. But that's another book...

Good point on the importance of the sun being diminished by the the realization it's only one of many many stars, but again another very good point on the importance of the other stars NOW being like our sun, potentially being sources of new life etc

Yes, like Nietzsche poetically says, Lord Chance rules the universe of chaos, and although there may be a seed of rationality here and there, for the most part, chance is real, is ontological, with an open future ... And we in some ways stand at the peak of creation, with so so so many things necessary as a support system for our being (perhaps we really are as gods)

As to why thinking about the new universe poses a 'dare' -- it's because it requires breaking out of the norm, the timely, the herd (to speak cruelly but in a poetic way); it requires so to speak becoming a goat who heads to the top of the mountain (and who hopefully doesn't become a wolf feeding on its own old herd) .... For the most part, in most times and places, for most of us, persecution is always present threatening any real 'thought' -- one must dare to think and often as a result, even harder, one must then be silent about what they have willed to know... (this is old esoteric stuff, nothing new, and found in Judaism, Xity, and Islam -- even in Plato, it seems to be part of the human condition....

Instead of dignity, think worth, or value (although the crucial phrase in so much thought 'is' the dignity of man). Plato's most crucial phrase is 'the good surpasses being in dignity'

Good point on balancing 'what' we learn with the fact 'that' we learn. The 'what' leads to nihilism but the 'that' opens us to awe which can lead to wonder (if it doesn't instead lead to nemesis). Yes, this is the position of science today.

Yes, the one who sees the 'blip' of humanity IS like a god, and again, the objective scientist who understands the world value-free, and so forth, is like a god, or at least a superman.

On the scale of a lifetime, yes, I like a formulation I read by John Dunne (Notre Dame): as children we ponder the world and live in timeliness, but as youths we ponder love and live in time, and then as adults we ponder death and live in a lifetime, and as ancients we ponder the gods and live in eternity. Mainly what I like is the idea of a lifetime being the only proper scale of time for a true existentialist, so to speak, if you will ...

I fully appreciate your "feeling of immensity and depth" -- it is awesome. So much comes to focus in the greek work aidos which can be translated as awe, what Leo Strauss calls the origin of all religion (with thaumazein or wonder being the origin of philosophy). Awe can lead to wonder if the 'fear' latent in awe doesn't create nemesis (righteous indignation), and if that original aidos is experienced as awe and not shame. But also tied up here is honor and nobility and courage...

This thread has taken on a life of its own .... perhaps, but you still are responsible to some degree for its coming to be .... it was your suggestion ....

as for our being a speck of dust, well, just as every snowflake begins as a speck of dust, so I plan to find my eventual resting spot high on a mountain a long long way from the ocean...
OT to the CDCW -- OnM, 19:10:23 09/13/04 Mon

Do check this out, if you haven't already:

www.infinitecat.com

( ~ meow! ~ )

Replies:

[> Okay, that's just...weird. -- dub ;o), 19:47:07 09/13/04 Mon

Plus, cat #278 is pink!

I hope Rufus sees this--she'd love it. Thanks, OnM.

dub ;o)

[> [> Re: Okay, that's just...weird. -- CW, 20:16:38 09/13/04 Mon

Looks like kitten #300 isn't watching anything, just hanging on for dear life!

Just proves cats have even worse taste in TV than we do. ;o)

[> [> 278??? i gave up after ~7! -- anom, 22:21:57 09/13/04 Mon

Besides, I was disappointed the site had nothing to do w/the button that says: "Instead of using a loom, we're going to wind all the yarn into balls and adopt an infinite number of kittens"! Or, come to think of it, with "Bastet's Paradox: Every cat is the center of the universe."

[> [> [> Re: 278??? i gave up after ~7! -- skpe, 07:38:02 09/14/04 Tue

Wonder what Clem would think of this site?

[> [> [> [> Hummm... -- OnM, 08:15:06 09/14/04 Tue

Infinite Kitten Poker.

[> My response is the same as dub's (except I added an "OMG, that's is just so weird!" -- Masq, 04:32:55 09/14/04 Tue

But funny as hell!

[> [> Perhaps we should start... -- OnM, 08:13:14 09/14/04 Tue

...an "Infinite Buffy Project" site. You know, with a shot of Masq watching Buffy, then one of Rufus watching Masq watching Buffy, then cjl watching Rufus watching Masq...

Well, you get the idea.

(We could include my 'Endless 7.22 Reviews', too!)

;-)

[> [> [> Re: Perhaps we should start... -- Vickie, 10:02:16 09/14/04 Tue

I was thinking Miss Kitty Fantastico watching Frankie watching...

[> [> [> [> I want to know... -- Masq, 13:25:58 09/14/04 Tue

How those people got their cats to pose in front of the computer.

My cats have never shown the least interest in what's going on on my computer screen, or the television. Not even when it's other cats.

[> [> [> [> [> Image compositing? -- Vickie, 16:31:28 09/14/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Image compositing? Now, who'd do that? -- LittleBit [click at your own risk ;)], 16:39:29 09/16/04 Thu


Miss Kitty Fantastico


The Conduit


The Spirit Guide Guide


CyAm, the new baby at my house


Random's Savannah


Next?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Image compositing? Now, who'd do that? -- Ann, 17:23:29 09/16/04 Thu

Oh Bit: You were inspired. I am glad. LOLOL

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I want to know... -- anom, 21:55:26 09/18/04 Sat

I have a picture that must be from around 8 or 10 years ago, not long after I got my 1st computer. I went into my home office, & there was Runcible sitting on my chair & peering at the screen. She actually stayed there long enough for me to go get my camera & take her picture (if you ask me, that's the hard part). But I didn't get an angle that shows what's on the screen. I'm only guessing this many years later, but it was probably the "starfield" screensaver she was staring at.

[> [> [> Re: Perhaps we should start... -- Rufus, 05:39:22 09/15/04 Wed

See, it would go like this. Masq watching Buffy, than one of Rufus's hair watching Masq, then cjl wondering when Rufus will come out from under all that hair, and watching Masq.............

[> [> [> [> your hair watches the screen, rufus? -- anom, 08:09:34 09/15/04 Wed

And is that your own hair...or cat hair? @>)

[> [> [> [> [> Is there a difference? -- Masq, 13:14:07 09/15/04 Wed

Someone came to the 2003 Gathering claiming to be Rufus, but I suspect the real Rufus, the one who posts here, is an actual feline.

[> [> [> [> [> [> If you remember *2* people came to the 2003 claiming to be Rufus...;) -- Rufus, 17:01:09 09/16/04 Thu

Consider them the staff of the *real* Rufus, who doesn't do crowds...and tends to bite, and claw...;)

[> See, this just proves that you are a cat person....;) -- Rufus, 05:36:42 09/15/04 Wed

As a matter of fact I happened upon this site some weeks ago then real life got in the way. Love that you of all people put it up here....;):):):):):):)

Current board | More September 2004