Star Trek put alot of these new ideas across by placing them in outer space, where they seemed a bit more remote and we could get a better look at them.

Yes, you're right, and I'll admit I'm cheating just a bit with my knowledge as I'm in the middle of reading Star Trek Memories by William Shatner. (Yes, so far I can recommend this book.) Roddenberry was certainly cognizant of the fact that you could say a lot more under the guise of science fiction than you could through your typical TV western of that era.

And as I was discussing with my brother the other day, the prime (but by no means the only difference) between the excellent original series Star Trek and the Voyager series is that the original series truly was science fiction in that science fiction at its core is experimenting with reality through stories, ideas and concepts. The original series was not modeling our own world but showing a possible (and somewhat plausible) future one. Voyager, on the other hand, was absolutely reveling in the current PC notions of the world; notions that even then (and still now) were being played out across college campuses and in government institutions of the time. There was very little true science fiction going on. It was mostly indoctrination. In fact, it lead me to the realization again (thump, thump) that leftists and liberals take themselves and their ideas WAY too seriously and just can't imagine a world where their ideas might not come into being. This is also related to their very poor (if non-existent) sense of humor (at least their public sense of humor, which if they have one at all is usually laced with the caustic).

I've traveled the edges, which is why I'll just never be a good capital "R" Republican again, and I'm no longer controlling enough to enforce sanity on the masses.

Have I failed so badly to make the case for conservatism? Republicans; yes, many of them are quite lacking. But I can make a great case (and believe I have) for a type of conservatism that welcomes prudent change while still recognizing that a certain vitality necessitates (but doesn't consecrate) a chaotic change and even "change for change's sake" change, and yet manages it all due to a grounding in principles and ideas (including theistic ideas) that adhere more to reason and experience than passing fads, passions and intense ideologies.

Alas, so much more work to do.

Live long and prosper, MM.

I read Star Trek memories. A wagon trail to the stars. (In the sky, not Hollywood)

As far as conservatism, God's laws and character are unchanging. I saw these interviews with Christian artists who made the soundtrack for the Jesus 2000 film. They were all cowtowing to PC and talked about
diversity. Does it glorify God to water down the message? Disappointing. Please continue to espouse
conservatism. Live long and prosper. (I can do that thing with my hand, but alot of people can't)

I've been wanting to post this for awhile. Spiritual experiences for most people seem to be of the educational variety. The burning bush is much more rare in my experience, although I've had
a few.

http://www.silkworth.net/bb/app2.html

[MM: I wasn't going to post this since it seems even a little more self-indulgent than usual, but then I thought, "What the heck?" Most of the therapeutic process is in writing this stuff but still there's a "sharing" aspect to it that, no matter how noxious it can be sometimes, adds to the therapeutic value.]

I've been wanting to post this for awhile. Spiritual experiences for most people seem to be of the educational variety. The burning bush is much more rare in my experience, although I've had a few.

That was a great link, MM.

quote:

Quite often friends of the newcomer are aware of the difference long before he is himself. He finally realizes that he has undergone a profound alteration in his reaction to life; that such a change could hardly have been brought about by himself alone. What often takes place in a few months could seldom have been accomplished by years of self discipline. With few exceptions our members find they have tapped an unsuspected inner resource which they presently identify with their own conception of a Power greater than themselves.

Perhaps so.

MM, I admit that I'm desperately in need of the fruits of the faith that you profess so eloquently. And I'll admit that I'm in a sublime state of detachment right now (relatively) where there is little or no ground beneath my feet, yet I do not fall. And I have thought more than once of your dear sister and wonder why one and not the other. One of the oddest, most terrifying and difficult things to manage sometimes can be freedom. But just as hard are commitments, responsibilities, expectations, and duties. We are all so incredibly fragile that the wonder is that most of us have more than five minutes on this earth. Truly.

I witnessed an event last night (ostensibly a 30th anniversary party for someone, but an event that necessarily had huge religious overtones) that helped show me (once again) how barren and flawed I am. But at the same time it showed me where my answer did not lie.

Thinking back, I've always been the sort who loved to learn new things, but I was never really impressed with how things worked. I always wanted to know why things worked. My thirst for knowledge quickly hit a dead end as I realized, especially in my senior year in high school and my two years at a community college, that whatever the subject (trigonometry, calculus, chemistry, whatever), the instructions were limited to, more or less, the rote learning of rules and techniques. Sure, when to apply a particular rule or technique still held a creative interest, but I wanted to know why, say, trigonometry worked, not that it worked. I wasn't interested in learning these rules (necessary though they are) so that I could learn how to build airplanes, as worthy, challenging, and creative an endeavor as that is. I wanted to know the reason that the air was there; the very thing that supports the ability of airplanes to fly in the first place.

This is a subject that JB reminded me of once again here with his thoughts written thusly: The basic distinction to be drawn between our modeling and explanatory attempts is that our modeling attempts, ultimately, are approaching reality in its discrete parts, while our explanatory attempts are approaching reality taken as a whole.

Although stubbornness, fear, anger, stupidity, close-mindedness, woundedness, and resentment are still big players in determining the paths that I follow, if I listen carefully (and I have been trying) I can see a path less traveled that is necessarily the one I must take. I have no doubt we'll end up at the same place. I have little doubt that your route is the direct one and mine is circuitous. I have no doubt yours is the brave path and mine is the more cowardly one. All these I freely admit, but something deep, deep inside will simply not let me go down the same path in the same way that many of you are on.

And I think in the end our orientations toward the spiritual are inevitably driven by being thankful for what one has or by being so desolated because of what one doesn't. It's a hope to keep the essentials that one has (and to perhaps better them) or a hope to acquire the essentials that one needs in the first place. Both of those concepts are no longer particularly applicable to me. I have a real non-martyr hunch that things will not get particularly better. And if things do get worse, well, I'll not like it, but it would be par for the course, so to speak. Hey, I'd like to be wrong and to be pleasantly surprised, but life has been trying to dispatch me since day one. The air I breathed was poisonous to me (allergies up the ying yang and thus asthma). The same often (even now) for the food I eat but with different symptoms. Even the family I grew up in seemed to not particularly want me. The likelihood of actually reproducing looks minimal at best, so from one vantage point even reality doesn't want me. And still I persist because I am, if anything, a stubborn son-of-a-bitch. But stubbornness will get you only so far. I realize the need to forgive and forget; to let go of angers, resentments and bitterness. I'm trying to do so. One must ultimately more forward towards something. That is my hardest task: to want to live and love more than I want revenge and justice.

Achieving the usual things in life, while I'd take them in a heartbeat, is no longer reasonable to expect and it's simply an impediment to expect to do so. If my life is to have any meaning it will be through becoming a better listener rather than an actor, and brother, I've often got some interesting stuff to listen to sometimes.

Something I have noticed is that what is most deeply personal is also most universal. I've sometimes shared a deeply personal experience that I was sure noone would understand and everyone resonated with it, much to my surprise.

Thomas Merton's "self indulgent" journaling of his most deeply personal struggles has helped me as much as anything I have found so far. Stories are powerful and your story becomes my story and eventually OUR story and that is God's semiotic way of anonymity.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

Something I have noticed is that what is most deeply personal is also most universal.

The really interesting thing about this stuff, MM, is that it's not inherently spontaneous or ad-libbed like it would be in a 12-step program or some other group setting. I doubt that ten thousand words can have the value of just a few dozen spoken before a group of real, live people, but it's better than nothing.

Hello, my name is Brad and I'm addicted to 20 oz. non-fat hot chocolates and undressing espresso girls with my eyes.

Hello, Brad!

And did I mention the whip cream?

Ummm, errr, this *is* supposed to be a PG environment, Brad.

No, no, no. I mean I usually have my hot chocolate with vanilla whip cream.

Oh.

Why? What were you all thinking? Isn't this the food-anon group?

No, Brad. The food-anon group is just down the hall. This is the sex-anon group.

Oh. Sorry.

Did you ever see Fight Club?

Did you ever see Fight Club?

Wow, from 12 step program to fascist group. Something tells me that somebody wasn't working all the steps. No, never saw that one, MM.

http://silkworth.net/bb/weagnostics.html

How readest thou?

[I] How readest thou?/I]

It readest veryest goodest. What thee think of this?

I try to cultivate an agnostic attitude and outlook.
When I lose track of it I am attempting to CONTROL
something or someone. I waste alot of energy chasing my tail and I wind up asking myself how important is it really? Who's gonna care a(n) hundred years hence?

About 50 Christians and half a dozen deists signed the Declaration of Independence, but you might not know it by reading some of their references to Providence, (not the town in Rhode Island) Creator, Guiding Hand, Invisible Hand, Cornerstone, Creative Intelligence, Spirit of the Universe, (1960s version Spirit in the Sky)
Power, Realm of Spirit, Creation, Guidance, Freind, Reason, Bridge, Broad Highway, Infinite, Love, Presence and many other CAPITALIZED words...

http://www.deism.org/frames.htm http://www.deism.com/

MM, in truth I'm an atheist, a deist, a theist, a Christian, an agnostic and a Ross Perot Reform Partyist, depending on the mood I'm in. Your magnanimity towards the various ways of believing and being is certainly refreshing and inspiring. And I do like the insights that you, WC and others share about the books you are reading. I wish more people would do so. That comes from a somewhat selfish point of view because I simply don't have the time to read everything I want to read so those in-a-nutshell book reports I find to be highly interesting and useful. JB and Phil are the master at that.

Speaking of Star Trek, MM, I thought you'd get a kick out of something I found on the web:

Our Shatner. . .

Our Shatner,
Who Art in Enterprise.
Hallowed Be Thy Toupee,.
Thy Starship,
Thy Captainly Will Be Done,
In the Enterprise,
As it Is,
In the Neutral Zone.
Give Us This Day,
Our Daily Overacting,
And Forgive Us Our Record Albums,
As We Forgive Yours.
And Lead Us Into Thy Federation
For Thine Is The Starship,
And The Power,
And The Glory,
For Ever.
Until the End of All Reruns

Amen

Picked up the video of Star Trek Memories yesterday,
once again confirming our karmic/psychic linkage, along with the director's cut of Star Trek, the Motion Picture, another copy of the wide screen version, and wide screen versions of the Wrath of Khan, the Undiscovered Country and the Final Frontier (the one where they find God)
Also picked up a widescreen version of Generations and Encounter at Farpoint Station (the "Q')

Too bad I only have a 20 inch tv. I'll have to sit very close. Our Shatner...

once again confirming our karmic/psychic linkage

I�ve just had this happen too often to write it off as coincidence. I don�t know why it doesn�t work for lottery numbers. Goodness knows I�ve tried.

Picture, another copy of the wide screen version, and wide screen versions of the Wrath of Khan, the Undiscovered Country and the Final Frontier (the one where they find God)
Also picked up a widescreen version of Generations and Encounter at Farpoint Station (the "Q')

They say the even-numbered movies are the good ones. I tend to agree. And I was just informed that the Sci-Fi Channel has a new Battlestar Galactica series. Okay, Starbuck is now a girl (does that mean girl-on-girl stuff?). I suppose that�s to be expected. Has anyone watched that series yet and formed an opinion?

By-your-command.com

What about Babylon 5? Did you ever watch Blake's 7?

What about Babylon 5? Did you ever watch Blake's 7?

Babylon 5 had a pretty good hardcore following, as I understand it. But I could never get into it. Perhaps I'll rent that on DVD from the beginning and see if I can make it work for me. Blake's 7 was an often interesting little series, wasn't it. I thought Cali (sp?) was adorable, if a bit anorexic. Blake was the guy with the afro, right? I liked the "main" guy who seemed to be in charge most of the time. I forget his name.

A great sci-fi series, but very short lived, was Space Precinct. The characters, although extremely alien at times, were well developed and there was great interaction between the characters. And quite remarkably (and almost unique to television) is the Office Brogan's family, particularly the children, acted like normal people. That is to say that they weren't thrown in as "cutesy" props. They were played are real kids and a real wife. It's quite remarkable and also quite remarkable that such a simple and seemingly obvious thing should be remarkable.

Red Dwarf is another big favorite. I've got to get the first four seasons on DVD one of these days. I'll have you all over for a sci-fi fest. I wish I could afford that. It would be grand.

Oochie woochie koochie coo, Captain?

Avon or Aven was his name. His shadow was highly developed. That's what made him so interesting.

Some Thoughts On Science Fiction
by David Gerrold

quote:

Science fiction is a unique branch of literature. It is the literature of possibility. It is the literature of "what if--" It is the only branch of literature that is about the future. All other literary genres are about the past.

Science fiction steps into the unknown and draws distinctions of what might be available. As such, it's a literature that can sometimes be enormously disturbing; it pulls you out of your comfort zone. And this is why SF will always be a minority literature; not a lot of people are eager to be made uncomfortable -- only the curious ones; the really curious ones. SF is for those folks whose commitment to knowing what's over the next hill is so intense that it outweighs the hunger pains in their bellies, the aches in their backs, and the cramps in their legs. Science fiction -- the hard core stuff -- is about expanding the event horizon of your imagination.

quote:

America began as a nation of immigrants, people settling an uncharted, undeveloped continent. American history is a chronicle of frontiers. It is no accident that John F. Kennedy characterized space as "the new frontier." It is no accident that the preamble to every episode of Star Trek declares, "Space � the final frontier." The American character is defined by the challenge of the frontier--of not knowing what comes next, but taking the risk anyway. This produces not only a profound awareness that the future will be different than the past, but an equally profound commitment to design and build that future. Science fiction of the twentieth century is the literature of that spirit. It is the awareness of change expressed as fear, uncertainty, curiosity, and most importantly, sense of wonder.

quote:

As American influence spread throughout the world after World War II, so did the literature of change. Today, the SF vocabulary has become a part of the global culture -- the future isn't just a possibility, it has become an inevitability. And SF has become a vigorous, sprawling, metastasizing literature of � of what?

It's not just a literature of the future anymore, it's not simply a literature of ideas, nor is it even a literature of possibility. It includes all of those things, but it is something more than that. It is a literature of transformation.

I really, truly wish I had written that. It�s wonderful stuff and so appropriate for this thread.

Haikus not my own
Afraid to provide the link
Lots of nasty stuff:

Kirk must get ship back
seduces alien girl
it's easy for him

Kirk goes back in time
hits on girl in soup kitchen
car ends their love tryst

Yeoman Janice Rand
captain's quarters, sex kitten
she makes coffee too

Kirk fires photon torps
Steady as she goes, Keptin!
Checkov: submissive

Limerick (not mine):

Kirk is really a ham
singing "Mr. Tambourine Man"
he's certainly killin'
the likes of Bob Dylan
Please grab the microphone....WHAM!!

From a speech by Mario Cuomo:

"Can we, who found the ultimate truth so elusive for so long, tell them with confidence now of the futility of gathering up riches and the things of the world?

It's clear to us that all the newly won power over space and time, the conquest of the forces of nature, the fulfilling of age-old challenges, have not made us any happier or surer of ourselves.

We have built rockets and and spaceships and shuttles; we have harnessed the atom; we have dazzled a generation with a display of out technological skills. But we still spend millions of dollars on aspirin and psychiatrists and tissues to wipe away the tears of anguish and uncertainty that result from our confusion and our emptiness.

Most of us have achieved levels of affluence and comfort unthought of two generations ago.
We've never had it so good, most of us."

The humanist dreams of Roddenberry have not given us the magic answer or a utopia where money is a thing of the past and everyone strives after becoming a better human and conquering space.
Something more is needed, but what?

The humanist dreams of Roddenberry have not given us the magic answer or a utopia where money is a thing of the past and everyone strives after becoming a better human and conquering space.
Something more is needed, but what?

In this four-dimensional world of space-time where resources are limited (and in which there are associated pleasures and pains for abundances and scarcities, or perceived abundances or scarcities), we all are inevitably in competition with each other; competition means, ultimately, conflict. The Star Trek utopic vision differs from the liberal one in one in that resources (thanks to the Replicators) are virtually unlimited and therefore, unlike liberalism, the paradigm is not one of confiscation and redistribution (aka: enforced poverty). In the Star Trek future, presumably, like magic, all our destructive human passions are eliminated and our energies are turned toward the creative and exploratory.

Well, that�s how it�s supposed to work, anyway. We all know that an alien race could touch down on Earth tomorrow and make us all billionaires with fancy mansion stocked with women (or men, or whatever is your fancy), with the finest wine cellars, the best food, the nicest cars, and the newest video games, and it wouldn�t end wars, murder or even traffic violations.

Yes, indeed, MM, something more is needed. The "but what" is something that most of us are still struggling with. One could say that those who have made looking for the "but what" a primary goal, and who truly understand the question, are fulfilling something in themselves even if they haven�t completely figured out the "but what".

But I surely would like to do some skeet shooting with one of those phasers. Oh, and I doubt I�d want to try and do without the transporter. But that�s it. Don�t need nothing else material from the future. Oh, sure, if you�re gonna count Yeoman Rand then I�ll have to admit you have me on a technicality, but nothing more would I need or want.

Okay, I admit the Holodeck on Picard�s enterprise would be useful but I could live without it. I could. Probably.

One of the healthy aspects of the Star Trek future
is the attempt to progress in consciousness, Sure, there were nuclear wars in the twenty-first century
and a brief return of totalitarianism, but warp drive was invented anyway and the focus of the race shifted outward toward colonization of other worlds
and discovery of new resources, material and psycho-Logical.

Athough humanism views human flaws and failings as arising from ignorance, the notion of original sin
and the puritan ethic which permeats our society
crept in anyhow. Ethical issues were viewed from a variety of perspectives, but the unbridled optimism of the series gave it a strong appeal. Some day we will understand, adapt and overcome.

I prefer this to the pessimism of the fundamentalist, but suspect that the reality of evil will plague mankind and follow him into the heavens.

http://www.all-reviews.com/videos/eventhorizon.htm

http://www.tvguide.com/movies/...owMovie.asp?MI=39293

FinalFrontierAirlines.com

One of the healthy aspects of the Star Trek future
is the attempt to progress in consciousness, Sure, there were nuclear wars in the twenty-first century
and a brief return of totalitarianism, but warp drive was invented anyway and the focus of the race shifted outward toward colonization of other worlds
and discovery of new resources, material and psycho-logical.

Implicit in that idea, MM, (and I think you described it well) is that the very way in which progress is defined is crucial to how our world unfolds. In fact, I wouldn�t be surprised if most of our political and social battles came down to our differences in the definition. That fact alone is somewhat extraordinary. For better or for worse, we�re now living in a world where the paradigm has shifted. No longer do we (or most of us) view our lives in terms of repeating cycles (such as the seasons). We now have firmly implanted in us the expectation that tomorrow will not only be different from today but better.

In the case of Star Trek, progress is defined almost exclusively as the replacement of age-old superstitions, bigotry, and religious ideas (whose irrationality we all know is at the core of our domestic and worldly abuses) with the enlightened attitudes that science automatically brings due to its very nature as an inherently rational and, if you�ll forgive the phrase, logical enterprise (forgive the "enterprise" as well).

But a pure scientific humanism is no guarantee of much of anything other than that we have a whole new set of reasons to murder each other in the millions. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam and others didn�t need to resort to religious beliefs in order to be so beastly. The real story is that both science and religion must work on de-fundamentalizing their respective areas of expertise.

Athough humanism views human flaws and failings as arising from ignorance, the notion of original sin
and the puritan ethic which permeats our society
crept in anyhow.

I think the one thing I will say for at least some forms of humanism (such as the humanism in Star Trek) is that it is an explicitly positive view of mankind. When I think not only of some of the problems caused by religion but problems caused by Nazi Germany, al Qaeda, Castro or any number of others is that self-hate is so often, I think, at the root of other-hate. To be aware of our limitations is good. To be a bit humble and careful rather than recklessly arrogant is good. But to self-hate is, I think, bad and I don�t know that I�ve ever seen original sin explained or cast in the light as anything but something that taints us and makes us bad. We NEED a positive and good image of ourselves. A punitive outlook of the world leads to more suffering than is necessary. On the other hand, if we believe that we can create perfection and that reality is perfectible then we are making the opposite mistake.

I prefer this to the pessimism of the fundamentalist

I think I�m pretty much in agreement with what you said.

This was an enormous shift in my thinking about five years ago when I became interested in modern Catholic thinking. Although I do still believe in
original sin (since the fall,) I began to embrace the idea that the original design was something God called "good" and as Crosby, Stills and Nash remind us, "we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."

There is a great potential for improvement and I would rather focus on that than cursing and condemning all which does not measure up, since that is Satan's job on earth and not mine unless I choose him for my employer. (which I do anyway)
I can read the paper looking for Antichrist or for
Christ. It's all a matter of what I choose to focus on.

Kennedy said that he looked at things and asked "why not?" I like that about Star Trek. I also like the Prime Directive, which may be translated,
"mind your own business." A good lesson any day.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

This was an enormous shift in my thinking about five years ago when I became interested in modern Catholic thinking. Although I do still believe in
original sin (since the fall,) I began to embrace the idea that the original design was something God called "good" and as Crosby, Stills and Nash remind us, "we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."

I'm sure you remember the Star Trek episode The Way to Eden. In fact, a couple other episodes prominently dealt with the concept of Eden: A Private Little War and The Apple. (It's fun how goofy costumes and Eden seem to go together. No wonder Adam and Eve left the garden.)



You might be surprised to find out just how multi-talented Charles Napier (Adam, The Way to Eden, the guy on the far right) is. I guess he wrote a couple of the songs in that episode (and he sings one of them as well). Whether he made his costume and the thigh-length black boots (oh, the humanity), I doubt it. You might also remember Charles as one of the "Good Ol' Boys" from the Blues Brothers. Now, try not to let your head explode imagining both characters in your mind at the same time.