From the BBC, Lord Puttnam said:
The growing number of toy-themed virtual worlds aimed at young people risks undermining the basic human values we wish to instil in children.
Carrying on my series on the depiction of religion in the TV series Babylon 5:
Garibaldi, an agnostic, stumbles upon a cult in an abandoned and forgotten area of the station. They refuse to let him leave and seem to try to convert him to their beliefs. They do not make any decernable progress as all Garibaldi wants to do is to leave.
They have adapted belief systems from the basic Mimbari beliefs and consider them spiritually advanced culture. These themes recur several times in the TV series.
“The universe is sentient, aware, alive.” “We are the universe, the universe made manifest.” “We try to understand it because in so doing, well, we will understand ourselves.” “One day the universe will truly understand itself. And at that moment, it will transcend itself.” “…next time it’ll be perfect.”
The cult also strives for their own self perfection to achieve a form of enlightenment. This is verging on suicidal since they look forward to “rejoining” the universe upon their deaths. Although not stated, the might move towards being a suicide cult – they have one charasmatic leader and many drone like followers – does that fit the profile?
“We’ve isolated ourselves in order to attain a purity of thought. Because purity of form and putity of intent, purity of execution, that is the on way. The only way the door will open.” “The door of the mind”
They seem to prefer their beliefs from a more existential mindset. “People like you suffer from the fact that you do not remember having been part of the universe.” “You know, driven mad by the silence, the terrible isolation.”
But their leader, Sebastian, is rather pretentious, claiming “I am as pure as I am ever going to be!”.
The episode is also notable for not being very good. “There are bits in that I like a lot. And some parts of it just fell down dreadfully. That’s simply the nature of the beast.” (JMS)
Let us never speak of that episode again…
Brother Alwyn is a leader in a religious order (to some extent affiliated with Catholic church) in a post apocalyptic earth in about the year 3261. I guess religion had to move with the times in the last 1254 years! The order plans to re-industrialize Earth; all technology was blamed for a collapse in civilization 500 years earlier. This is an interesting reversal on todays outlook – the Church is usually warning agains new trends and generally fears change (consider Galileo, Darwin, etc). This futuristic order now leads the technological movement against the fear and opposition of the population. It is mentioned that “Rome” has again turned down recognition for the churches work – I guess some things don’t change!
There is an interesting post on a catholic blog which reads like a condensed version of my series of posts, but written by a believer.
Continuing my series of depection of reigion in the TV show Babylon 5:
The alien race Brakiri celebrate the Day of the Dead once every 200 years. The day is timed to coincide with the position of a particular comet that, to Brakir, symbolizes death – comets have historically been seen as a portent (usually of something bad). This is somewhat like the real annual holiday of The Day of the Dead, which has roots in Aztec and Mesoamerican civilization, and is typically celebrated on 1st Nov (All Saints’ Day) or 2nd Nov (All Souls’ Day).
The Brakiri only celebrate their Day of the Dead in their own territory – this is interpreted as one of their species must own the ground where the ceremony takes place. It is probable that the writer, Neil Gaiman, referenced the Jewish concept of an eruv. For observant Jews, this is a way of allowing certain activities that would normally be forbidden (cheating if you ask me!)- usually by establishing an “enclosed” area to allow certain objects to be carried on the Sabbath. Of course in the story, this normally forbidden activity is talking to the dead!
For this one night, the people in Brakiri territory experience a visitation from someone deceased they have known in their past. If the experience is real or only a trick is left deliberately ambiguous. We can’t infer the existence of soul from this incident but the existence of the soul is an established fact to the audience from other episodes.
G’Kar, being previously aware of this religious ritual, tries to warn others that allowing the ceremony could be dangerous.
Lockley: Religious toleration is foolish?
G’Kar: This is not a matter of toleration. You do not know what you are doing.
Lockley: The declaration of principles of the Alliance… [slight sarcasm] you are familiar with it, I trust?
G’Kar: I wrote it!
Lockley: It states that religious belief shall be sacrosanct.
G’Kar does come to regret his attitude and wonders what he would have experienced if he had participated. Of course Lockley is responsible for the station and when a part of it disappears, people start questioning her decision to allow the ceremony.
Sheridan: [rebukingly] OK captain, let me get this straight: you sold Babylon 5 to an alien race for the night, who some how transported a square mile of this station to their home world while apparently filling it with people temporarily returned from the dead?
Lockley: Yes sir
Sheridan: Well, do you have an explanation why you did this?
Lockley: Yes sir, I thought it was a metaphor. I’ll try to be more literal minded from now on, sir.
If we assume all religious beliefs are part of their own isolated language games, can’t this be an unwarranted assumption? This raises the interesting dilemma of freedom of belief vs. safety of others. If there is the possibility that a religion is physically real, can we truly separate them from the physical world (and the moral sphere) as you seem to suggest? I thought I would argue from an agnostic perspective for a change. 
Anti Citizen One
Continuing my series on the depiction of religion in the TV show Babylon 5:
The Centauri have a pantheon of about 70 Gods. At least some are dedicated to a particular object or activity (underworld, luck, fertility, etc). “In a world where every day is a struggle for survival, you need all the gods you can get.” The religion is “rather Bacchanallian”. Some of the Gods are emperors what were elevated to Godhood by circumstances or their followers.
“They believe in a variety of afterlives; the god you worship, of the Centauri pantheon, holds dominion over a given “heaven” or afterworld. If you appease the god sufficiently during life, it will accept you into that afterworld, in preparation for the day when all heavens are united; if not, you will have to be reborn and choose another until one accepts you. jms”
One of their religious festivals is ‘from a time in our world’s history when two dominant species were fighting for supremacy: our people, and a species we called “Xon”. At year’s end, we count how many of our people survived, and celebrate our good fortune!’ Centauri funerals are also treated as a celebration. This is a very life affirming and contrasts the emphasis of remembrance used by Earth religion (e.g. Christianity). On the other hand, Centauri weddings are sombre and filled with mutual recrimination.
Occasionally, Centauri have precognitive abilities and often manifested as a premonition of their own death. They do not appear to preclude free will – some are aware that choices will let them alter the future (e.g. suicide would prevent the vision becoming reality) but it still has weight as a likely outcome.
Londo: I need to see what is before me, if I should escape it or embrace it, if there is any longer a choice.
Morella: There is always choice. We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with a decision we have already made. Now, if you understand that, there is hope! If not…
This is saying a belief in determinism is a self fulfilling prophesy (and a return of my favourite: confirmational bias). Without giving the ending away, Londo meets his fate because of his refusal to choose another path in life.
Emperor Cartagia was an insane leader of the Centauri and perhaps modeled after the Roman Emperor Nero. He makes a Faustian pact to elevate himself to Godhood.
Londo: Emperor Cartagia is insane! He has made a deal with these “Shadows”, allowing them a base here, in the belief that they will grant him godhood, like the emperors of old! He wants to be immortal, to be worshiped. And he does not care who pays the price for his deification!
Vir: Does anyone else know about this?
Londo: Vir! When you are mad, you say these things the same way that you and I talk about the weather!
What price is worth paying for immortality and unlimited power? Or how much would you pay not to have it?
To be continued…
Anti Citizen One
Was prompted to ask this question yesterday whilst watching the Wimbledon Men’s Singles Tennis final between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
I’m not usually a fan of tennis, but this was a captivating match of highs and lows, or emotional and physical fluctuations. It was also considered one of the great tennis finals of all time, and the eventual winner Roger Federer equalled Bjorn Borgs record of 5 Wimbledon titles in a row. It was hard not to disagree with the analysis that I was watching history in the making (which is a tautology) and that I was watching a sporting legend in the making.
But I wondered why is sport of such social and cultural importance to us?
I know the obvious answers that sport has its origins in the martial activity of man. That athletes, wrestlers, javelin throwers, archers, horse-racing, shot-putters were all engaged in a false-war activity. It’s sometimes easy to forget that medieval jousting contests (despite the danger to limb and life, including to the spectator) was a sporting event.
Then there is the tribal element to sport, that peoples unite in a common support for the nation, their district, their community. The modern support that many young men and women give to Football clubs is a manifestation of this. Replace sense of community with a sense of pride in the badge, the jersey. Supporters feel they own the club they support, that they employ the players to represent their hopes and ambitions.
But then nowadays any martial element to sport as a preperation for war is just a social memory. Soldiers are not expected to complete their training these days on ‘the playing fields of Eton’ or elsewhere for that matter. Though admittedly it is still a means of learning about and engaging with competative behaviour, as important on the battlefield and sports field as it is in the world of business.
And culturally sport is perhaps less cohesive than it once was. There is television for example, where a particular sports team may have its supporters situated on the opposite side of the globe, paying supporters even who may have no idea where Manchester (for example) really is. And of course people have a very different idea of social identity as cultures intermingle.
Of course there is the simple answer, it is all just a game, a recreation, a bit of fun, maybe even an act of escapism. But I can’t help but think that it is slightly more purposeful, that there is something more cohesive about sport than its purely being fun. I dont pretend to know what the answer is, but having watched the great Tennis final yesterday I pondered whether it was a sense of shared hope, of myth-making, of taking joy from arbitrary beliefs (i.e. the idea that sport matters) that draw so many people to it.
This was my favourite news article of the day, perhaps even of the week so far. Research from the Institute of Education in London has shown that children who have an imaginary friend (with whom they are not afraid to interact with) have enhanced creativity which furthers their communication and articulacy skills whilst boosting their self-confidence.
Contrary to previously held beliefs that such behaviour was either abnormal or escapist, educational psychologists now believe that it is a perfectly acceptable coping mechanism for a variety of challenging issues from parental break-up to bullying or lack of self-esteem.
This seems like a nice example of arbitrary beliefs* being useful.
*Beliefs without justification or evidence, (similar to faith style beliefs).
It is also the imaginary and intellectual equivalent of the transitional object, such as the teddy-bear or comfort blanket that very young children use to start their developmental differentiation between self and other, me and not me.
Another example posited in the article was this one. “But it is not just children who converse with invisible companions. Explorer Dave Mill created his imaginary friend Nobody at the age of 34 as a survival mechanism during a solo walk to the North Pole.”
“The music industry has reacted angrily at a decision to give away the new album by US musician Prince with a tabloid newspaper.” BBC
Paul Quirk, co-chairman of the Entertainment Retailers Association stated “It is yet another example of the damaging covermount culture which is destroying any perception of value around recorded music.”
This attitude of “nothing is worth doing if I’m not getting paid” is destructive. Not all interactions in culture are for profit (e.g. free museums). The music labels seems to think they have a right to be profitable. If an artist decides to use a different distribution channel (through a tabloid newspaper) that is their choice. And the artist is getting paid by the newspaper. What is the big deal?
Anti Citizen One
I will conclude my current series of Nietzsche and Tolkien with this post. It has been a mixed selection of agreements and strong contrasts. The role of God is the most striking disagreement.
One point that needs further work is the role of pity in the Lord of the Rings. The concept is central to both writers and I have a feeling they would starkly disagree about the concept.
I thought I would end with comments that were in agreement with a central Nietzsche goal – for the invidual to rely on their own moral compass and not rely on outside authority (e.g. God). It is stated by Elrond that the Valar (the Gods) will no longer directly help Middle Earth and they must deal with Sauron without further divine intervention (as happened in The Silmarillion).
[Elrond said] “And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it.” (Emphasis mine)
Interesting he mentioned good and ill/evil.
[Éomer said] “we desire only to be free, and to live as we have lived, keeping our own, and serving no foreign lord, good or evil.”
Here Éomer takes responsibility for leadership and refuses outside authority and assistance.
In the Lord of the Rings, Gandalf is of course the final(?) divine emissary from the Valar (the Gods) to middle earth. But can we rely on divine help in future? One of the last things he says in the book chimes with good ol’ Nietzsche. Gandalf says “take responsibility for yourselves” and he considers that his companions are capable of making their own choices. His departure to allow his “followers” to grow is not unlike Zarathustra saying “I now go away alone, my disciples! You too now go away and be alone! Thus I want it.”
‘Well, we’ve got you with us,’ said Merry, ‘so things will soon be cleared up.’
‘I am with you at present,’ said Gandalf, ‘but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so. And as for you, my dear friends, you will need no help. You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you.’
Thus Spake Gandalf
(and Anti Citizen One)
“Germany has banned the makers of Tom Cruise’s new movie from filming at military sites in the country because the actor is a Scientologist.” BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6240312.stm
Túrin was a human tragic hero of The Silmarillion. Because his father defied the will of Melkor (the main villain), Melkor “intends to bring about the ruin of his enemy by the force of his own gigantic will.” (Introduction, The Children of Húrin). Túrin becomes aware of Melkor’s attention and strives to escape his fate. At one stage, Túrin even adopts the name Turambar – which means “master of doom”. This title is also claimed by Melkor – “the master of the fates of Arda”. They are locked in a duel of wills. This is addressed by Nietzsche in the concept of “amor fati”.
Amor fati is a Latin phrase that loosely translates to “love of fate” or “love of one’s fate”. It is used to describe an attitude in which one sees everything that happens in one’s life, including suffering and loss, as good. Wikipedia
This also reminds me of Ulmo (one of the powerful Valar): “in the armour of Fate”…”there is ever a rift, and in the walls of Doom a breach”… “So it shall be while I endure, a secret voice that gainsayeeth, and a light where darkness was decreed.” (Unfinished Tales)
This suggests Nietzsche is again at odds with Tolkien. Fate should be fought against or embraced depending on who you listen to.
“[The Will to Power] is a psychological principle of human behavior that every being seeks to extend its sphere of action and influence: to consolidate itself.” Introducing Nietzsche, Laurence Gane.
“A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength — life itself is will to power” Beyond Good and Evil
You quoted an important passage which illustrates why Sauron’s concept of power is not the same as Will to Power.
“The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.” (Emphasis mine) LOTR
Sam still regards a garden of his own as his due. He realized that having slaves to do his gardening was not in his interests. But he would exercise his own gardening “power” using his hands alone.
“The sharp-eyed courage that tempts and attempts, that craves the frightful as the enemy, the worthy enemy, against whom one can test one’s strength?” (Birth of Tragedy)
Nietzsche says our “enemies” (i.e. challenges in our life) must be matched to our ability. There is no happiness in having a garden that is really tiny or one what is the size of Mordor. The worthy enemy is matched to Sam and his particular abilities – i.e. a “one small garden”.
To conclude why Sauron is misguided and Sam is correct, Nietzsche said:
“But I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.)” Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlass
Anti Citizen One
Recent Comments