Stranger
ddavitt
What chances do people give the Nest after Mike has gone? The idea
was to spread the message but at the end Mike groks that men are not
Martians and that to a large extent it will never work. I agree
there. But we are still left with a handful of people who can do
wonders - and an angry mob. Yet they are so serene it makes you
wonder what they're on. They calmly dish Mike up and talk about how
there will be a monument to him on the spot where he was murdered.
Jubal even wants to buy the land as a good investment.
Now is it me, or is this a little too detached and unrealistic?
Mike's fame and wealth might mean he is remembered a little longer
than the average murder victim but in the terrifyingly familiar land
that Mike is a stranger in, will this be enough? Can his death
paradoxically save the Nest, as the death of other martyrs has done
for other faiths?
I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
Jane
Robert Link
> I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
> Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
> power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
> Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
> teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
> will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
Jane, I couldn't agree with you less; the entire feeling I get from
discorporate Mike helping Jubal and the scene where he takes over for
Foster is that his Earthly job-de-jure is done, the nest will go on, and
things will be different. I don't think either of those scenes would
have been included if RAH hadn't meant to hint that what the nest had
was real and enduring. But I also think it was purposely left vague, an
unimportant detail, the important message being, once again, that human,
superhuman, or inhuman, Love, Honor, and Duty are the true eternals. As
for the mudane mechanics of money and fame, do you think an adept would
ever be short for either unless they so chose? Even if the only option
was playing slots, these folks would never hurt for dough, and never
want for attention; no earthly success would be denied one of the inner
circle capable of telepathy, telekinesis, apportation, etc.. I think
the nest would survive as long as the members thereof grokked it useful.
--
Robert Link
Thou art God
Red Dorakeen
ddavitt <dda...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:37AE6DD6...@netcom.ca...
> More Strange musings...
>
> What chances do people give the Nest after Mike has gone? The idea
> was to spread the message but at the end Mike groks that men are not
> Martians and that to a large extent it will never work. I agree
> there. But we are still left with a handful of people who can do
> wonders - and an angry mob. Yet they are so serene it makes you
> wonder what they're on. They calmly dish Mike up and talk about how
> there will be a monument to him on the spot where he was murdered.
> Jubal even wants to buy the land as a good investment.
>
> Now is it me, or is this a little too detached and unrealistic?
> Mike's fame and wealth might mean he is remembered a little longer
> than the average murder victim but in the terrifyingly familiar land
> that Mike is a stranger in, will this be enough? Can his death
> paradoxically save the Nest, as the death of other martyrs has done
> for other faiths?
>
> Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
> power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
> Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
> teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
> will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
>
I also must disagree. I think Mike has feelings of doubt about the
success of something like the Nest because he is afraid that by "eliminating
competition" at both ends of the life spectrum (Martians having their
weeding take place during "childhood", while humans during adulthood), but
Jubal gives arguable thoughts that the new level of thought and control that
those in the Martian schools obtain will provide new ways of weeding out the
worst of the human race. (Anyway, my point is that Mike never really comes
to any grokking conclusion about the issue, and it's left up to the reader
to decide.)
Every description that Heinlein gives of the upper-level friends and
"students" of Mike towards the end of the story seem to point out that they
are prepared to start their own churches (or will be soon) and Mike's
charisma and personal handle on the "miracles" he provides will not be
needed to continue to bring in the new crops of "believers" in the future.
The Nest didn't seem to be something that would give up for lack of
fame, or fortune. Other methods could provide the same culling effect of
the "Church" setting without bringing up the ideas of "faiths" and
"pseudo-fosterites". I know the discussion of religion as a relation to
Mike's "language-school" has previously been in heavy debate, but who says
that the "language school" imitated religion, when it might have just been
the other way around?
-Ross G.
ddavitt
> ddavitt wrote:
> > I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
> > Mike's input.
>
> Jane, I couldn't agree with you less; the entire feeling I get from
> discorporate Mike helping Jubal and the scene where he takes over for
> Foster is that his Earthly job-de-jure is done, the nest will go on, and
> things will be different.
Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see that the society as a whole was
ready for the Nest, especially the "free love" to use a useful shorthand and
the cannibalism. To my mind, the cannibalism served a useful purpose on Mars
perhaps but not on Earth. As Jubal points out, it's a very necessary taboo
to prevent an open season on one's neighbours. What is really gained from it
anyway? I don't think one can grok a person through consumption of their
physical self. I don't want to kick in another religious debate here
though....
As for the free love, that would have got them shut down or focused
attention on the wrong thing. I think they learned a lot from the
Fosterites; and remember how Jubal despised them? They learned the
importance of layered congregations with the real rewards coming further in.
The Nest required one to learn Martian. Why? I think that by the time Mike
came to a full realization of his powers he should have been able to
dispense with this. I don't see it as being necessary, except as proof of
devotion and dedication.
Anyway, to cut back to the original point, I think that Mike was the pivotal
character and that without him the wheel would be spinning slower and
slower.Jubal may have been a suitable successor but he is too lazy to take
on the responsibility IMO. He loved Mike but he never lived in the Nest
remember.
Jane
Jani
Red Dorakeen wrote
I know the discussion of religion as a relation to
> Mike's "language-school" has previously been in heavy debate, but who says
> that the "language school" imitated religion, when it might have just been
> the other way around?
It's the map-changing thing. There is so much that cannot be said in any
human language, and Martian (which RAH, quite sensibly, never tried to
invent ) embraces all the concepts which are not represented except as
clumsy approximations in "human-speak". If you speak Martian, you have no
need for blind faith, because there are now verbal symbols for what is
considered, in human terms, literally "unspeakable".
Jani
AGplusone
"nests") would survive without Michael, maybe by the time the 1970s rolled
around, RAH had a few thoughts himself. Doesn't Eunice (aka Jo-an) encounter
something very much like a nest in IWFNE (off-stage, of course); and what are
her thoughts?
--
David M. Silver
AGpl...@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
Merfilly8
>character and that without him the wheel would be spinning slower and
>slower.Jubal may have been a suitable successor but he is too lazy to take
>on the responsibility IMO. He loved Mike but he never lived in the Nest
>remember.
>
>Jane
Perhaps it is just me, but though Jubal may be the 'successor', it is Dawn and
Jill who are truly going to be the driving force behind any attempt to keep the
Nest growing. And, though I hate to bring religious comparison in, after
scanning a few other threads recently, the Christians originally espoused views
that were widely divergent from mass culture. Yet they hung on doggedly, and
look at the world today.
Filly, the eternally confused one
Prnzofthvs
>What chances do people give the Nest after Mike has gone? The idea
>was to spread the message but at the end Mike groks that men are not
>Martians and that to a large extent it will never work.
<snip>
and:
>I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
>Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
>power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
>Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
>teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
>will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
>
>Jane
I don't want to get into a rant here, but I seem to remember a similar
situation with a certain Jewish carpenter's son a couple thousand years ago.
His followers seem to have managed to keep the spirit going in his (supposed)
absence.
Steve
"You got to stand for somethin', or you'll fall for anything."
Aaron Tippin
Prnzofthvs
>human language, and Martian (which RAH, quite sensibly, never tried to
>invent ) embraces all the concepts which are not represented except as
>clumsy approximations in "human-speak". If you speak Martian, you have no
>need for blind faith, because there are now verbal symbols for what is
>considered, in human terms, literally "unspeakable".
>
>Jani
This is true right here, right now. If you really want to understand another
culture fully, you must learn the language so thoroughly that you come to
"think" in that language. That gets you about 1/10th of the way there, because
you still don't have the experience-set of those who have grown up in the
society have to base their thoughts and actions on. Learning the language,
though, is the essential first step .
Steve (who's lived in many different cultures, and still has trouble
understanding his own)
ddavitt
> >I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
> >Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
> >power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
> >Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
> >teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
> >will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
> >
> >Jane
>
> I don't want to get into a rant here, but I seem to remember a similar
> situation with a certain Jewish carpenter's son a couple thousand years ago.
> His followers seem to have managed to keep the spirit going in his (supposed)
> absence.
>
Different times. Fewer people, no mass communication, higher level of people to
whom religion was something worth dying for....whole different ball game. However
I'm sure Heinlein was wanting a comparison to be made; the parallels are there
but I'm not sure quite where he wanted to go with it. I mean; Mike is the right
hand man of the original Jesus so he would know where to go for advice; he had a
good role model. But are Gill and co of the same calibre as the disciples?
That said, why the Martian angle? Heinlein was saying that salvation for mankind
can only come from the stars?
I have a suspicion that Stranger is the sort of book that can provide dozens of
messages for those who want to find them. How many of them are ones that Heinlein
truly believed in and how many are intentional is another matter. I'm also
reasonably sure that Heinlein wrote a few of them with tongue firmly in cheek....
Jane
Robert Link
> I have a suspicion that Stranger is the sort of book that can provide dozens of
> messages for those who want to find them. How many of them are ones that Heinlein
> truly believed in and how many are intentional is another matter. I'm also
> reasonably sure that Heinlein wrote a few of them with tongue firmly in cheek....
>
> Jane
Story goes, SISAL was germinated during the same discussion that led to
"Gulf." It was written in two main parts separated by almost a decade
(and I'm certainly open to correction here, my details may be off a
bit). I don't think, with this kind of composition, that one can expect
there to be a cohesive single message. (Stray thought: look at the
similarities between Mike Smith and Mycroft Holmes, respective martyrd
saviors of their peoples.) My guess as to "why mars?" is that RAH
already had in the Martians of Red Planet a workable "deus ex machina"
whereby his fable of a savior could still fit as SCIENCE fiction, rather
than speculative fiction; afterall, that's what his audience typically
paid for.
--
Robert Link
Beverley Eyre
> Story goes, SISAL was germinated during the same discussion that led to
> "Gulf." It was written in two main parts separated by almost a decade
> (and I'm certainly open to correction here, my details may be off a
> bit). I don't think, with this kind of composition, that one can expect
> there to be a cohesive single message. (Stray thought: look at the
> similarities between Mike Smith and Mycroft Holmes, respective martyrd
> saviors of their peoples.) My guess as to "why mars?" is that RAH
> already had in the Martians of Red Planet a workable "deus ex machina"
> whereby his fable of a savior could still fit as SCIENCE fiction, rather
> than speculative fiction; afterall, that's what his audience typically
> paid for.
>
Robert, that is so interesting to me. I've always felt there was a strong
connection tween MIAHM and SiaSL. On my RAH web page I point out that H
had two characters who couldn't laugh, and they were both named Mike.
I still think that is somehow significant. (Don't know why yet)
Relatedly, I do AI programming, and I've thought about what could I
_not_ envision a computer simulating. The only answer so far is humor.
I can envision how a computer could create and appreciate art, do
creative work, etc, but not laughing. The fact that RAH made the moment
Mike Smith laughed the moment he bacame fully human, and the fact that
Mycroft never successfully groked humor, is significant to me. It resonates
with my own musing into the humor/human connection.
Bev
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverley Eyre I grew tired of meekness
fb...@ucla.edu when I saw it without effect.
http://www.ee.ucla.edu/~eyre Of late therefore I have been saucy...
-- Ben Franklin
ddavitt
> On the question whether (and in what form) the Church of All Worlds (or
> "nests") would survive without Michael, maybe by the time the 1970s rolled
> around, RAH had a few thoughts himself. Doesn't Eunice (aka Jo-an) encounter
> something very much like a nest in IWFNE (off-stage, of course); and what are
> her thoughts?
>
Do you mean the man with the bad aura? That really dates the book for me; all the
talk about swinging and such. I don't get that with the others. This book could
have been so much better...ah well.
Jane
ddavitt
> Robert Link wrote:
>
> > (Stray thought: look at the
> > similarities between Mike Smith and Mycroft Holmes, respective martyrd
> > saviors of their peoples.) My guess as to "why mars?" is that RAH
> > already had in the Martians of Red Planet a workable "deus ex machina"
> > whereby his fable of a savior could still fit as SCIENCE fiction, rather
> > than speculative fiction; afterall, that's what his audience typically
> > paid for.
> >
>
> Robert, that is so interesting to me. I've always felt there was a strong
> connection tween MIAHM and SiaSL. On my RAH web page I point out that H
> had two characters who couldn't laugh, and they were both named Mike.
> I still think that is somehow significant. (Don't know why yet)
>
Neither was a real human in one sense. Looked at another way, both were very
special humans.Angel and computer, what a pair....
One thought; Mike didn't know the Martians were using him as a mobile recording
device but did he ever know he was really an angel? Same for Agnes too I
suppose.
Jane
James Yount
people to
| whom religion was something worth dying for....whole different ball
game.
Do you really think people have changed that much? Not arguing here,
just curious.
|But are Gill and co of the same calibre as the disciples?
Hmm, I don't think any of them would have sold Mike for thirty or
3,000,000 pieces of silver. They seem to be able to walk on water when
Mike tells them they can, and no one denied him any number of time
before or after the cock crowed. All in all I would say that Gill and
co are Not of the same calibre as the disciples mentioned in the Bible.
They seem to be somewhat superior.
|
| That said, why the Martian angle? Heinlein was saying that salvation
for mankind
| can only come from the stars?
Could it be that he felt that a change that drastic, in as short a time
as he was positting, had to be externally introduced? Certainly there
have been revolutions in human behavior/ thinking in the past, but for
the most part they have been either very slow in coming to fruition, or
externally motivated. The days of one human culture being truly alien
ended with the advent of Starbucks and the strip mall.
|
| I have a suspicion that Stranger is the sort of book that can provide
dozens of
| messages for those who want to find them. How many of them are ones
that Heinlein
| truly believed in and how many are intentional is another matter. I'm
also
| reasonably sure that Heinlein wrote a few of them with tongue firmly
in cheek....
:) Indeed. Of course with any decent book there are layers of meaning.
NW
David Wright
>
> Prnzofthvs wrote:
>
(snip)
> That said, why the Martian angle? Heinlein was saying that salvation for mankind
> can only come from the stars?
>
> I have a suspicion that Stranger is the sort of book that can provide dozens of
> messages for those who want to find them. How many of them are ones that Heinlein
> truly believed in and how many are intentional is another matter. I'm also
> reasonably sure that Heinlein wrote a few of them with tongue firmly in cheek....
>
> Jane
If I may interject here. Quoting from _Grumbles_ p245.
"Well, what was I trying to say in it?[_SIASL_]
I was asking questions.
I was *not* giving answers. I was trying to shake the reader loose from
some preonceptions and induce him to think for himself, along new and
fresh lines. In consequence, each reader gets something different out of
that book *because he himself supplies the answers*."
David Wright (A RAH fan for 46 years, who first read _SIASL_ in two long
afternoons hiding out in the Fort Jackson base library in 1962)
Programmer/Analyst
N.W. District Health
Georgia State Dept. of Public Health
100 W. Walnut Avenue, Suite 92
Dalton, GA 30720
Phone: 706-272-2342
Fax: 706-272-2221
E-Mail: dew...@dhr.state.ga.us
dwri...@alltel.net
Web Page: http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr
Beverley Eyre
>
> ddavitt wrote
>
> > Beverley Eyre wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Robert, that is so interesting to me. I've always felt there was a
> strong
> > > connection tween MIAHM and SiaSL. On my RAH web page I point out that H
> > > had two characters who couldn't laugh, and they were both named Mike.
> > > I still think that is somehow significant. (Don't know why yet)
> > >
> >
> > Neither was a real human in one sense. Looked at another way, both were
> very
> > special humans.Angel and computer, what a pair....
>
> serious, about their roles. One of the most horrible aspects of being an
> adult is realising you are going to get precisely nowhere by crying, so you
> might as well apply yourself practically and *laugh* when, to be honest, it
> all becomes too much.
> >
I have to politely dissent on this one, Jani. I think Mike learning how
to laugh was him transitioning from martian to human. IIRC, he said that
martians never have anything to laugh about.
My guess at this moment is that laughter is a natural consequence of two
factors: a conceptual consciousness, and death. I think that RAH had a similar
notion, but I'm not sure.
Bev
Beverley Eyre
Prnzofthvs wrote:
>
> >Relatedly, I do AI programming, and I've thought about what could I
> >_not_ envision a computer simulating. The only answer so far is humor.
> >I can envision how a computer could create and appreciate art, do
> >creative work, etc, but not laughing. The fact that RAH made the moment
> >Mike Smith laughed the moment he bacame fully human, and the fact that
> >Mycroft never successfully groked humor, is significant to me. It resonates
> >with my own musing into the humor/human connection.
> >
> >Bev
>
> computers? :-)
>
You're assuming that Mike never learned to laugh on Tertius. Do you
have any evidence for this belief?
Bev
Beverley Eyre
James Yount wrote:
>
> Beverley Eyre <fb...@ucla.edu> wrote in message
> news:37B0E9A9...@ucla.edu...
> | You're assuming that Mike never learned to laugh on Tertius. Do you
> | have any evidence for this belief?
> |
> | Bev
>
> Of course not. He is, however, aware of the fact that there is
> absolutely no evidence to support such a hypothesis. Thus he can state
> that a laughing (Mike) computer does not exist.
>
> NW
I'll buy that. I've just removed the plastic Mike-piece from my
plastic world-model.
But it's not a conclusion I'm drawing. No way, dood.
Jani
Sam. No, the point, surely, about Sam was that he was (what was it? " a stud
and a bliffy"?) A gigolo, anyway, and as Eunice said "she bought the best".
Gigi was very lucky to meet Joe, leave Sam and luckier still to meet Eunice.
I don't think there were any Nests in IWFNE - there were non-monogamous
relationships based on physical sex and a lot of misinterpretations of
Eastern faiths (Johann understands Yoga, Sam makes money out of it) but
apart from that there's no suggestion than another way of thinking is
actually damned hard work, as there is in SiaSl.
Jani
Jani
ddavitt wrote
> Beverley Eyre wrote:
>
> >
> > Robert, that is so interesting to me. I've always felt there was a
strong
> > connection tween MIAHM and SiaSL. On my RAH web page I point out that H
> > had two characters who couldn't laugh, and they were both named Mike.
> > I still think that is somehow significant. (Don't know why yet)
> >
>
> Neither was a real human in one sense. Looked at another way, both were
very
> special humans.Angel and computer, what a pair....
I think the laughing is growing-up. Both the Mikes were so worried, and
serious, about their roles. One of the most horrible aspects of being an
adult is realising you are going to get precisely nowhere by crying, so you
might as well apply yourself practically and *laugh* when, to be honest, it
all becomes too much.
>
> One thought; Mike didn't know the Martians were using him as a mobile
recording
> device but did he ever know he was really an angel? Same for Agnes too I
> suppose.
>
> Jane
Being an angel wasn't relevant - he knew what he was doing while he was
corporate. He did the *right thing* and wasn't surprised at returning to his
real being <G> Alice went back kicking and foaming. *What* was that
reference to the Glaroon that I missed in one of the trivs? :)
Jani
Jani
> Jani wrote:
> >
> > ddavitt wrote
> >
> > > Beverley Eyre wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert, that is so interesting to me. I've always felt there was a
> > strong
> > > > connection tween MIAHM and SiaSL. On my RAH web page I point out
that H
> > > > had two characters who couldn't laugh, and they were both named
Mike.
> > > > I still think that is somehow significant. (Don't know why yet)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Neither was a real human in one sense. Looked at another way, both
were
> > very
> > > special humans.Angel and computer, what a pair....
> >
> > I think the laughing is growing-up. Both the Mikes were so worried, and
> > serious, about their roles. One of the most horrible aspects of being an
> > adult is realising you are going to get precisely nowhere by crying, so
you
> > might as well apply yourself practically and *laugh* when, to be honest,
it
> > all becomes too much.
> > >
>
> to laugh was him transitioning from martian to human. IIRC, he said that
> martians never have anything to laugh about.
>
> My guess at this moment is that laughter is a natural consequence of two
> factors: a conceptual consciousness, and death. I think that RAH had a
similar
> notion, but I'm not sure.
Ok, I'll rephrase it. Mike being a martian-human had nothing to laugh about,
but once he became human, he understood humour. And he said that humour was
not *funny*. If you remember, he learned to laugh by observing an unfunny
situation at the zoo, and then explained to Jill that humans laughed at
misfortune. Jill was not impressed at the idea that the prat-fall was the
pinnacle of human comedy, but she had to admit he was right. (BTW sex is
much funnier than death. Just a thought :)
Jani
Prnzofthvs
>Different times. Fewer people, no mass communication, higher level of people
>to
>whom religion was something worth dying for....whole different ball game.
>However
>I'm sure Heinlein was wanting a comparison to be made; the parallels are
>there
>but I'm not sure quite where he wanted to go with it. I mean; Mike is the
>right
>hand man of the original Jesus so he would know where to go for advice; he
>had a
>good role model. But are Gill and co of the same calibre as the disciples?
>
>That said, why the Martian angle? Heinlein was saying that salvation for
>mankind
>can only come from the stars?
>
>I have a suspicion that Stranger is the sort of book that can provide dozens
>of
>messages for those who want to find them. How many of them are ones that
>Heinlein
>truly believed in and how many are intentional is another matter. I'm also
>reasonably sure that Heinlein wrote a few of them with tongue firmly in
>cheek....
>
>Jane
I wasn't comparing the two, Jane; merely saying that something just as
illogical has already happened, in RL, right here on our timeline. An obscure
son of a Jewish carpenter, who didn't survive past his early 30's, never
travelled more than a few tens of miles from his birthplace, did not get any
press coverage, no multi-media treatments, no interviews on talk shows, etc.,
has had a greater effect on the affairs of mankind than all the generals, the
kings, presidents, etc., who ever lived. And His "movement" thrives still.
Steve
Prnzofthvs
>_not_ envision a computer simulating. The only answer so far is humor.
>I can envision how a computer could create and appreciate art, do
>creative work, etc, but not laughing. The fact that RAH made the moment
>Mike Smith laughed the moment he bacame fully human, and the fact that
>Mycroft never successfully groked humor, is significant to me. It resonates
>with my own musing into the humor/human connection.
>
>Bev
So, now you're saying you have a "faith" or a ;"belief" in non-laughing
computers? :-)
Steve
James Yount
Jani <ja...@ossar.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:7I4s3.15024$V21.4...@nnrp3.clara.net...
| Ok, I'll rephrase it. Mike being a martian-human had nothing to laugh
about,
| but once he became human, he understood humour. And he said that
humour was
| not *funny*. If you remember, he learned to laugh by observing an
unfunny
| situation at the zoo, and then explained to Jill that humans laughed
at
| misfortune. Jill was not impressed at the idea that the prat-fall was
the
| pinnacle of human comedy, but she had to admit he was right. (BTW sex
is
| much funnier than death. Just a thought :)
|
| Jani
Is it that sex is funny, or is it the particularly ridiculous customs we
have built up to surround sex? I submit to you that the sex jokes are
still pratt-fall humor. In this instance, instead of someone getting a
pie in the face, they are standing around with their ass hanging out.
It is a slightly different venue, but I believe it is still the same
punch line.
NW
James Yount
AGplusone
>the point, surely, about Sam was that he was (what was it? " a stud
>and a bliffy"?) A gigolo, anyway, and as Eunice said "she bought the best".
>Gigi was very lucky to meet Joe, leave Sam and luckier still to meet Eunice.
>I don't think there were any Nests in IWFNE - there were non-monogamous
>relationships based on physical sex and a lot of misinterpretations of
>Eastern faiths (Johann understands Yoga, Sam makes money out of it) but
>apart from that there's no suggestion than another way of thinking is
>actually damned hard work, as there is in SiaSl.
But I recall some business about different "circles" in that episode. Are there
'circles' in Eastern Faiths, Jani? I don't know. Just asking.
James Yount
| plastic world-model.
|
| But it's not a conclusion I'm drawing. No way, dood.
Of course not, you are accepting the conclusion I have drawn.
<WEG>
NW
Bart Hammerly
to keep the "religion" going. Given the events of "Cat Who Walked...", I would say,
No. It is given that Jubal and Richard are from the same timeline. With this
information, is it likely that VMS' group continued? Discuss.
--
Phoenix
Robert Link
> > I have to politely dissent on this one, Jani. I think Mike learning how
> to laugh was him transitioning from martian to human. IIRC, he said that
> martians never have anything to laugh about.
>
> My guess at this moment is that laughter is a natural consequence of two
> factors: a conceptual consciousness, and death. I think that RAH had a similar
> notion, but I'm not sure.
I recently saw a quote, but didn't copy the source; the impression I was
left with, however, is that this laughter scene is inspired by some
Nietchze. Can any of you erudite types source me here?
--
Robert Link
Bart Hammerly
> but once he became human, he understood humour. And he said that humour was
> not *funny*. If you remember, he learned to laugh by observing an unfunny
> situation at the zoo, and then explained to Jill that humans laughed at
> misfortune. Jill was not impressed at the idea that the prat-fall was the
> pinnacle of human comedy, but she had to admit he was right. (BTW sex is
> much funnier than death. Just a thought :)
>
> Jani
I am not sure I agree with the analysis of humor, however.
--
Phoenix
Bart Hammerly
> Prnzofthvs wrote:
> >
> > >Relatedly, I do AI programming, and I've thought about what could I
> > >_not_ envision a computer simulating. The only answer so far is humor.
> > >I can envision how a computer could create and appreciate art, do
> > >creative work, etc, but not laughing. The fact that RAH made the moment
> > >Mike Smith laughed the moment he bacame fully human, and the fact that
> > >Mycroft never successfully groked humor, is significant to me. It resonates
> > >with my own musing into the humor/human connection.
> > >
> > >Bev
> >
> > So, now you're saying you have a "faith" or a ;"belief" in non-laughing
> > computers? :-)
> >
>
> You're assuming that Mike never learned to laugh on Tertius. Do you
> have any evidence for this belief?
>
> Bev
Mike IV learned to laugh on Luna. Look it up. :-) Mike IV grokked humor.
--
Phoenix
Beverley Eyre
Been awhile since I read it. You're probably right.
Bev
Jesse
Actually, I'd the proof was there. Somewhere (I think it was when
Richard talked to the Cirlce) it mentions him wanting to talk to Jubal
about some of the things he had heard about. Givan that Richard had been
off planat for a long time, including apparently when the events took
place, he would not have heard much about it. And the group spread
slowly, not shouting itself from the rooftops. No JWs these. (No offense
intended to JWs)
--
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Jesse
Remove spam trap from address to reply.
Grad school is the snooze button on the clock-radio of life.
-- John Rogers, comedian (who holds a graduate degree in physics)
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
William Hughes
Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre
Nevermind, I'm in a fey mood tonight. And I wouldn't know either one from a
left-handed stim-bolt.
Jani
AGplusone wrote
> Jani (on Sam and the eastern sect in IWFNE):
>
> >I don't think there were any Nests in IWFNE - there were non-monogamous
> >relationships based on physical sex and a lot of misinterpretations of
> >Eastern faiths (Johann understands Yoga, Sam makes money out of it) but
> >apart from that there's no suggestion than another way of thinking is
> >actually damned hard work, as there is in SiaSl.
>
> But I recall some business about different "circles" in that episode. Are
there
> 'circles' in Eastern Faiths, Jani? I don't know. Just asking.
Sorry I'm late, David - I got tangled up in the Bev-threads :) IIRC, the
circles in IWFNE are meditation groups- the practice which Jake referred to
as "autohypnosis". Johann had read about Yoga, both the philosophy and the
physical exercise (which, as I understand it, are two parts of a whole) in
his youth, and was quite surprised to discover that Eunice and her
contemporaries had retained some of that wisdom in JE's Crazy Years society.
Sam was a cynic, who picked up the ideas, saw a market, and used it for
material gain. There's a conversation when Joe says he's half-promised Sam
that he and Eunice will "join a circle" and Eunice says "Swinging? Oh,
well..." She doesn't mind, but she's a lot happier with the groups which are
not *just* sex: Winnie and Jake, Joe and Gigi, etc.
The "Nests" went beyond that, in the sense that true enlightenment (horrible
phrase, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) could not be
achieved without the "overlay map" of the Martian language. Learning Martian
was much harder than learning Yoga. Hinduism is a difficult faith, I think,
for an outsider, but there is a lot which can be picked at and used for
less-than-spiritual motives. SiaSL, IMO, tried to show that pick-and-mix
only works in the short term (JE and entourage went to the moon, but that
didn't help *anyone* who was left behind) and you have to have, in effect,
an alien way of thinking and a language which expresses that, in order to
transcend humans endlessly trying to make silk purses out of sows' ears.
Sorry, that wasn't really what you asked. I'm still trying to fit Beth's
Crowley dissertation into my ongoing SiaSL essay <G> and wondering if it'll
ever get written....
Jani
Prnzofthvs
>Of course not, you are accepting the conclusion I have drawn.
>
><WEG>
>
>NW
Jim, could yo draw a few conclusions for me? I'd like to have them framed and
use them to fill that empty space on the living-room wall.
Thanks, Steve
James Yount
Prnzofthvs <prnzo...@aol.comjunkbloc> wrote in message | >Of course
not, you are accepting the conclusion I have drawn.
| >
| ><WEG>
| >
| >NW
|
| Jim, could yo draw a few conclusions for me? I'd like to have them
framed and
| use them to fill that empty space on the living-room wall.
As long as you do not mind pencil's. Oil painting is way out of my
league.
NW
Nollaig MacKenzie
...
>
> Jim, could yo draw a few conclusions for me? I'd like to have them framed and
> use them to fill that empty space on the living-room wall.
>
thinkwell!
....N.
--
Nollaig MacKenzie <Nol...@newsguy.com> If on Net, myPC=amhuinnsuidhe.dynip.com
http://extra.newsguy.com/~nollaig/
corvu...@my-deja.com
ddavitt <dda...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> More Strange musings...
>
> What chances do people give the Nest after Mike has gone? The idea
> was to spread the message but at the end Mike groks that men are not
> Martians and that to a large extent it will never work. I agree
> there. But we are still left with a handful of people who can do
> wonders - and an angry mob. Yet they are so serene it makes you
> wonder what they're on. They calmly dish Mike up and talk about how
> there will be a monument to him on the spot where he was murdered.
> Jubal even wants to buy the land as a good investment.
>
> Now is it me, or is this a little too detached and unrealistic?
> Mike's fame and wealth might mean he is remembered a little longer
> than the average murder victim but in the terrifyingly familiar land
> that Mike is a stranger in, will this be enough? Can his death
> paradoxically save the Nest, as the death of other martyrs has done
> for other faiths?
>
> I give the nest a year maximum before it all collapses without
> Mike's input. I truly don't think without him there they have the
> power to become pseudo Fosterites ( which is pretty much what the
> Nest is, but the miracles are real). Will they have the power to
> teach what they know to others? They still have the money, which
> will come in handy but can they sustain the impetus?
>
> Jane
>
>
They won't be a mass movement, because not everyone is fitted or has the
capacity for "Martian enlightenment." They will run the world from
behind the scenes, like the supermen in "Gulf."
Ed Rom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
AGplusone
Valentine Michael's sacrifice:
>They won't be a mass movement, because not everyone is fitted or has the
>capacity for "Martian enlightenment." They will run the world from
>behind the scenes, like the supermen in "Gulf."
From the catacombs, so to speak? Do you think that those who reached the Ninth
Circle before the sacrifice obtained sufficient knowledge of Michael's power to
do (or eventually learn to do) what he did to Berquist, et al., the two
troopships of Storm Troopers and Digby? After all, Jubal has this list of those
who will hardly be missed. What would those taught by Michael who remain behind
do when they grok a sufficient evil?
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
There was a comment about turning out the jail birds, after Mike's
last arrest. IIRC, both Jill and Dawn helped "send back to the end of
the line" some of the bad eggs that really didn't deserve to be
released onto society. Something about Jill being squeamish about it
until she understood that dis corporation did not mean "death of the
spirit, but only of the body."
ck
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more
security you have, the less freedom! Niven's Fourth Law)
AGplusone
> IIRC, both Jill and Dawn helped "send back to the end of
>the line" some of the bad eggs that really didn't deserve to be
>released onto society.
Thanks, Charles, I think you recall correctly although I haven't gotten to that
part yet in my current reread of SiaSL. So then it would seem the Ninth Circle
initiates do have Mike's powers, insofar as we can tell, even though Valentine
Michael was "only an egg" and his powers were enormously less than those of a
mere adult Martian (not even approaching an "old One"). That being established
it seems very likely that if the Ninth Circle maintained a masquerade like that
maintained by the Howards not only would the Church of All Worlds survive, it
would thrive and, indeed, did it wish, suitable converts available, could
decide to control the Earth to whatever extent it chose or deemed expedient. It
might merely be a matter of time before it converted a Constintine--or a
Secretary General Douglas, should that be its goal.
It also perhaps explains part of the reason why for the novel's statement that,
when the Martians do finally finish their 'groking' of the Earth and its
inhabitants (using Michael's report, among other things), it will be too late
for them to apply the solution they used in the case of the "Fifth Planet."
Somehow to me, that would be a sequel worth imagining, not as a space opera of
deering do (although 'deering do' might be an interesting part of it), but as
an intellectually, ethically or morally why not fable (whatever I might mean by
that). Sort of a real 'childhood's end' tale, perhaps?
James Yount
AGplusone <agpl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990819115700...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
OK, out in left field here. If they had managed such a masquerade, and
had survived, what do you think of them being one of the groups
competing with The Circle of Ouroboros? It would fit the facts about
the multiverse as I recall them.
NW
James Yount
| James Yount:
|
| >OK, out in left field here. If they had managed such a masquerade,
and
| >had survived, what do you think of them being one of the groups
| >competing with The Circle of Ouroboros? It would fit the facts about
| >the multiverse as I recall them.
|
the plate
| and the care and feeding of air-head pitchers, they used to stick me
in right
| field, probably because with my short legs I couldn't really cover
left field
| properly. I honestly don't have an answer; but I do know someone who's
been
| working on the thesis that what RAH was working toward at the end was
a
| synthesis into which something like you suggest might fit very well.
I.e., had
| there been 'time enough' his theory is RAH intended something
eventually taking
| the form such as that of James Branch Cabell's Manuel series, which I
| understand all eventually linked together altho damifino how since
I've only
| read his Jurgen to try to understand RAH's Job. The tip-off to him is
the
| presence of a putative short story in one of the earlier versions of
the
| Campbell-generated Time Chart of the Future History, then its
vanishing without
| explanation only to reappear as a chapter heading in Time Enough For
Love. The
| theory is quite speculative, but he hasn't fully explained it to me,
so
| necessarily I don't do it full justice. He's the fellow who edits and
| publishes The Heinlein Journal I've mentioned before, William
Patterson,
| BPRAL...@aol.com. He's mentioned this theory of his at our on AOL
chats so
| it's no great secret he's guarding and I'm sure he would enjoy hearing
from you
| regarding it.
I will mail him. Sounds like a fun discussion. I sometimes wish I had
AOL so I could join you folks.
NW
AGplusone
>OK, out in left field here. If they had managed such a masquerade, and
>had survived, what do you think of them being one of the groups
>competing with The Circle of Ouroboros? It would fit the facts about
>the multiverse as I recall them.
Don't feel lonesome out there, Jim. Until I learned to properly block the plate
and the care and feeding of air-head pitchers, they used to stick me in right
field, probably because with my short legs I couldn't really cover left field
properly. I honestly don't have an answer; but I do know someone who's been
working on the thesis that what RAH was working toward at the end was a
synthesis into which something like you suggest might fit very well. I.e., had
there been 'time enough' his theory is RAH intended something eventually taking
the form such as that of James Branch Cabell's Manuel series, which I
understand all eventually linked together altho damifino how since I've only
read his Jurgen to try to understand RAH's Job. The tip-off to him is the
presence of a putative short story in one of the earlier versions of the
Campbell-generated Time Chart of the Future History, then its vanishing without
explanation only to reappear as a chapter heading in Time Enough For Love. The
theory is quite speculative, but he hasn't fully explained it to me, so
necessarily I don't do it full justice. He's the fellow who edits and
publishes The Heinlein Journal I've mentioned before, William Patterson,
BPRAL...@aol.com. He's mentioned this theory of his at our on AOL chats so
it's no great secret he's guarding and I'm sure he would enjoy hearing from you
regarding it.
--
AGplusone
>I will mail him. Sounds like a fun discussion. I sometimes wish I had
>AOL so I could join you folks
Ah, but you can. You, or anyone else, on AIM, ver. 2.0 (a public beta which is
free), which runs independent of AOL, simply requires internet access, and
about 2 Mb of spare RAM to run, once we start rescheduling meetings in late
September. [I'm taking a break after two years without one.]
Thanks for the opening. <g>
James Yount
which is
| free), which runs independent of AOL, simply requires internet access,
and
| about 2 Mb of spare RAM to run, once we start rescheduling meetings in
late
| September. [I'm taking a break after two years without one.]
|
| Thanks for the opening. <g>
No problem, just remember my two bits. :) Hopefully AIM and ICQ will be
something like integrated by then. I need another IRC protocol about as
much as a 300 baud modem.
NW
(Who will download it if needed.)
AGplusone
you may find it worthwhile. Jane Davitt opened up the subject in the first
'modest proposal' thread over 30 days ago; but since her post may have expired
on some of your readers, I'm reposting this post here.
Date: Wed, 25 August 1999 12:35 AM EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:BPRAL22169">BPRAL22169</A> [@aol.com][
Message-id: <19990825003532...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
Opening up a new thread -- I spent too much time today organizing what I recall
of the various conversations here and those I've had elsewhere with some of our
AIM participants and lurkers on the subject of
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NAMES IN STRANGER
At various times we have puzzled over the character names in STRANGER, for we
are assured that they are deeply significant.
The first and most obvious is VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH. Heinlein made a
practice of combining notable first names with common last names (as Woodrow
Wilson Smith, Andrew Jackson Libby, etc.), so this may be a cue that Valentine
and Michael are intended to be interpreted as notable. Both Smith and Jones
are "everyman." There seems to be no "Valentine Michael" historical personage.
VALENTINE refers to Valentinus or "St. Valentine," of which there are two (or
possibly three, depending on which text you consult). The earliest led a
blameless and somewhat dull life, and nobody knows why he was canonized. But
the second was a Roman Christian priest of the third century a.d., leader of
the first major heretical movement in what would become the Catholic church.
He was martyred by the church establishment for teaching that the
direct, personal experience of the divine was the important thing in
Christianity, rather than submission to ecclesiastical authorities, a position
associated with Gnosticism and, later, antinomialism. Among other heretical
doctrines, he also taught that sex was a route to the divine. The early church
had already lost its "agape" orientation at that time, and Valentine's
teachings were intended, in part, to return to the simplicity and directness
of what we now call "primitive Christianity." Some of his followers, however,
made much whoopee. Valentine was suppressed, but his charismatic movement was
so widespread in the early church (one estimate says his followers were about a
third of all Christendom at the time) that he could not be simply suppressed.
Instead, he was sanitized by identifying him with the Roman early spring
festival of Lupercalia, in which the old Romans had taken much
opportunity to make whoopee on and around the ides (15th) of February, and his
feast day was set on the day of his death February 14 (269 a.d.).
MICHAEL is more direct – it is a Hebrew name that means simply "he is like
God." Its relevance to the story seems to need no further explication.
JUBAL HARSHAW is rather more complicated. No one has proposed any
significance to the Harshaw last name. I vaguely recall hearing about a stage
magician of that name (or a name like that, at any rate) around the turn of the
century, but that may not come to anything. The really interesting material,
however, relates to the name JUBAL.
There are two lines of research that have turned up bits of information. The
first is Biblical references in GENESIS to a Jubal, brother of Tubal-cain.
Jubal is referred to as the "father of all who know music," and he is
traditionally referred to as a patron of makers of musical instruments. Hence
the references in the book to "father Jubal."
This causes me to think the name is an indirect evocation of Mark Twain. The
ethos of music has been taken over in our time by fiction, and a maker of
musical instruments would translate to a maker of printing equipment – and Mark
Twain, a printer in his earliest job and later a publisher of subscription
books, nearly bankrupted himself underwriting the Paige typsetting machine.
This would be very circumstantial if it were not for other details –
Twain famously dictated much of his writing after 1905 to a succession of three
typists, for instance.
However, Twain is not the model for Jubal's physical appearance. He is
described as bald and pot-bellied, which is a physical type Heinlein has used
over and over for his wisdom-figures. It is derived from either (a) Alfred
Korzybski or (b) Aleister Crowley, take your pick. It is implied that Jubal is
in his nineties or late eighties at the time of STRANGER – and both Korzybski
and Crowley were born in the 1870's and would therefore be in the
same age range around the time of the publication of STRANGER.
Heinlein's own work notes for STRANGER show that the character was built up
from that of Kettle Belly Baldwin in "Gulf," combined with the sybaritic
lifestyle of Erle Stanley Gardner (author of the Perry Mason mysteries).
The second line of investigation for the name "Jubal" was in reference to
Freemasonry. No doubt a real student of Masonic lore could untangle this in
short order, but no one has yet come forward to do so. Tubal-cain is a
character involved in an important secret ceremony of Freemasonry, but it is
not clear what the reference is. The reference is confusingly associated with
a reference to Hiram Abiff, the traditional architect of the Temple of
Solomon. These characters would have lived centuries apart. Masons among us
assure us that the ceremonial references shed no light on Jubal's name or role.
Heinlein is known to have been interested in Freemasonry as a young man,
though no application he may have submitted has been found to have been
finalized. Mrs. Heinlein has said that by the time he was able to afford to
become a Mason, he had moved on to other things. It is quite unlikely that he
was privy to highly secret ceremonial information.
An essay titled "Whence Came the Stranger: Tracking the MetaPattern of
STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND" by "Adam Walks Between Worlds" (deceased), however,
makes an interesting connection of Jubal with Freemasonry by way of the Knights
Templar. The essay was originally published in the neo-pagan Church of All
Worlds magazine, GREEN EGG, but is available online through www.wegrokit.com.
There is no actual evidence that European Freemasony was ever connected with
Templarism, but a highly romantic mythology connecting them was offered in the
19th century and has become part of the pop mythology of Freemasonry. Briefly,
the Knights Templar were a crusading order created in the 12th century to
collect assets in Europe for a crusade to take and hold the Holy Land,
particularly Jerusalem, from the Moslems, a project they were briefly
successful in doing. When the Moslems retook the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1291),
the Order continued its existence, collecting money for a return engagement
(which never materialized). They also did a brisk business in Holy Relics,
pieces of the True Cross, etc. They used the money from their various
collections and ventures to underwrite banking activities, and heavily
subsidized the French throne until Philip the Fair got the idea to get out from
under the debt by having the order disbanded and confiscating their assets. On
one Friday (the thirteenth of October 1314 – which is how the Friday the 13th
legend got started -- he ordered the arrest of all the 2,000 Templars in France
and started a witch hunt against the order, accusing them of satanic and
Heathen practices. At the time, the Papacy was under the thumb of the French
throne, and all of Christendom was ordered to comply with the
persecution, though other countries were notably lukewarm to what they saw as
bullying by France and never extracted any of the confessions gotten by torture
and publicized in France. There are three historical treatments of the trials,
all French, the latest of which mixes the Templars up with the violent
anti-Cathar crusade. The Cathars (Albigensians) were heretics, incidentally,
in the south of France who revived a lot of St. Valentine's
gnostic-antinomian doctrines. They were massacred in 1224 in a famous incident
in which they were herded into their church and it was burned to the ground.
It was pointed out that not everybody in the church was a heretic. "Kill them
all," the leader of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, is reported to have said:
"God will know His own."
One of the heathen practices of which the Templars were accused was that they
worshiped in the Jerusalem chapter house a floating head, or a picture of a
head, Baphomet, that represented Satan. A tv documentary on the Shroud of
Turin a few years ago suggested that the head was actually the face part of the
Shroud, with the rest folded back and the whole put in a case. There seems to
be no authority for this speculation. Later commentators [an
essay on this point can be found at <A
HREF="http://intranet.ca/~magicworks/knights/solved.html]">http://intranet
.ca/~magicworks/knights/solved.html]</A>
have decided that the head probably existed and probably was a relic of a Sufi
martyr Husayn ibn Mansur al-jhallaj (d. 922 CE) and the name "Baphomet" was a
corrupted phonetic transliteration of ""abufihamet," the head's nickname
"father of understanding" or "father of all wisdom" in Arabic – hence father of
all = Jubal. (You thought I couldn't connect this stuff back with STRANGER,
didn't you?). To make things even more interesting, al-Hallaj (and
the Sufi order of The Builders) has been identified with Hiram Abiff, and we
are back to Freemasonry.
In support of this identification, Adam Walks Between Worlds offers the
observation that the only ornament in the nest was a stereographic bust of
Jubal Harshaw – a floating head – which was worshiped as Jubal was worshiped as
the only human to grok in fullness without first learning Martian. In terms of
the heresy trials of the Templars, the practical effect is somewhat reminiscent
of the Russian Gulag experience of the 20th century: the Templars
in Jerusalem were accused of being "contaminated" by displaying a Sufi relic.
Adam Walks Between Worlds makes more of the character, connecting him with the
"preternatural spirit" Aiwass that dictated Aleister Crowley's "Book of the
Law" in 1904, because Jubal, like the "Book of the Law" was "born on three
successive days." This may be a more fruitful line of research than it may
appear on the surface, for the three "laws" of Thelema ("Great Soul"), the
religion Crowley founded based on the "Book of the Law," are: (1) Do
what Thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; (2) Love is the Law, love under
Will; and (3) Every person is a Star. In a sense, STRANGER appears to be
entirely devoted to and formed by these laws. Adam WBW suggests that STRANGER
is a popularization of Thelema. (There are a great many Thelemic websites, so
you can read about Thelema at your leisure). If so, we have both sides of the
satirical treatment – satirization of Christianity with the
suggestion it should be replaced by Thelema. This is a proposition that bears
further investigation.
Jubal is one of the deepest characters Heinlein ever created, and there are
layers upon layers of meaning, with no indication we are anywhere near a
complete understanding of what goes into him.
The names of the three secretaries present a special problem; over the years
I've tried several schemes of interpreting them, but without success. They
"almost" hang together in several ways, and it is possible that they hold the
master key to interpreting the whole book.
The woman are not given family names at all – which seems significant; it
appears that they are to be interpreted allegorically and possibly together
rather than as individual, novelistic characters.
ANNE. St. Anne is the mother of Mary, and therefore the grandmother of
Christ.
MIRIAM is MARYAM is MARY, the mother of Christ, or perhaps Mary Magdalene,
traditionally a reformed prostitute who ministered to Christ's personal needs.
Since no mention of a relationship between Miriam and Anne is made, the
reference is probably to Mary Magdalene.
DORCAS means "doe" a deer, a female deer. Re a drop of golden – no, wait,
wrong work of fiction. The most prominent Biblical story concerning a Dorcas
is the charity of a seamstress who took care of widows and orphans. This name
may thus point back to Freemasonry. Who will help the widow's son? Dorcas
does.
Various schemes for interpreting these three have been suggested, starting
with the Three Graces. None seems to work out properly in terms of the
symbolism. The scheme that seems to have the most promise is that the five
"servants" in Jubal's household represent the five modes of Yoga. This
interpretation is suggested by a remark by Anne, when called to witness to the
color of a house on a hill, she remarks "it's white on this side,' and Jubal
points out it wouldn't occur to her, because of her training, to assume it was
white all over. This unwillingness to make the assumption marks Anne as
representing Jnana Yoga. Dorcas and Miriam may represent Hatha Yoga and
Bhakti-Yoga, and Duke and Larry may represent Raga-Yoga and Karma-Yoga – or
some other combination. Although this scheme at least has the virtues of (a)
hanging together, and (b) being extensible to Mike's Martian powers (since
most of them are yogic demonstrations and not supernatural at all), there just
isn't any strong evidence to support or contradict it. If it's a true schema,
Heinlein may not have been interested in revealing the fact to make a point,
just using it to organize the figures.
Anne is the most highly characterized of the three, the only one for whom
there is any significant personal detail. She is a "blonde valkyrie" from
Dallas – a Fair Witness, an unusual figure that may have been suggested by a
remark in Korzybski's SCIENCE AND SANITY, but is also an indirect reference to
Samuel Renshaw, as she has been trained by Renshaw's methods. The Fair Witness
is in Heinlein's earliest set of notes about the book and dates from
the same brainstorming session in November or December 1948 that gave rise to
"Gulf," another story that uses Renshaw concepts from a three-part article that
appeared in 1947.
JOE DOUGLAS seems unremarkable.
AGNES, however, means "lamb," as in sacrificial animal, and Agnes Douglas'
role is to be martyred, by a comment by a ministering angel.
MADAME ALEXANDRA VESANT ("BECKY VESSY") seems to evoke Annie Wood Besant –
socialist firebrand at the center of the family planning trials in the 1870's.
When Madame Helena Blavatsky died in 1904 (a very crucial year), Besant assumed
leadership of the Theosophical Society, a Buddhist-influenced quasi-religious
organization that was to have, at its peak, a membership of over 20 million
adherents. She ultimately (1920) moved the Headquarters of the
Society to India and hailed her adoptive son, Krishnamurti, as the new Messiah,
avatar of Horus. Krishnamurti politely declined the honor, and the membership
of the Theosophical Society thereafter declined, though it is still around
today. In "Lost Legacy" Heinlein had showed a thorough acquaintaince with
Theosophy, which he apparently picked up from Leslyn's mother, Skipper
MacDonald, the only Theosophist known to have been in his immediate
acquaintance.
*Whew* I'm sure i missed some -- anybody else want to pick up the ball?
W (Bill Patterson)
Beverley Eyre
of it?
I dont' have much to add. Anne reminds me of Ishtar (TEFL). I always thought that the
bald and pot bellied wisdom figure was modelled after RAH himself.
I thought 'Valentine' was based on common associations. To me, when I hear
Valentine I think of love (Valentines Day) and violent death (St. Valentines
Day Massacre). Both are associated with VMS.
As to Masonry, it's possible to become privy to secret stuff by other methods.
I'm an inveterate second hand book store browser, and I bought a book once that
I think was part of an estate. What might have happened was that a mason died and
his heirs just sold his books. But anyway, there was a book that held some 'secret'
mason stuff. (I've since lost it). But the book outlined some of the Mason's rituals
in detail.
Where did you head that Erle Stanley Gardener had a sybaritic lifestyle?
Bev
(me - a name I call myself)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverley Eyre I grew tired of meekness
fb...@ucla.edu when I saw it without effect.
http://www.ee.ucla.edu/~eyre Of late therefore I have been saucy...
-- Ben Franklin
Bart Hammerly
All I can say is, "Whew!" and "Well done!"
--
Phoenix
Cryonics: Food for the Future
ddavitt
> Dear Silver,
>
> All I can say is, "Whew!" and "Well done!"
>
Yes, that was interesting! I am pushed for time at the moment.
Hopefully the discussion will still be around in a few days.
Thanks David
Jane
AGplusone
>Wow, that was incredible. Did you do that off the top of your head? Or
research any
of it?
and then added a few thoughtful points of his own.
Bart echoed the thought and complemented the author.
Jane concurred and hoped the thread will be around when she returns.
Bill Patterson (BPRAL...@aol.com, who also edits The Heinlein Journal) wrote
that. I think he'd love to hear your comments. Yes, he worked some on it. The
notion that we might discuss SiaSL and use our postings here on AFH to put
together a composite and critiqued review of Stranger, to be published
ultimately in The Heinlein Journal, is his, springing out of a like thing the
Heinlein AOL group did (on the movie Troopers) about eight months ago which he
will be publishing in his forthcoming Volume VI (in January 2000) Y2K and the
crick don't rise. (If it does I'll loan him my Mac and he'll publish it
anyway.) Our comments on Bill's post may generate the basis of a section of
that joint review. I'll post my follow up on AOL (where Bill's note was also
posted) to start off in the next post reply here.
Lots to munch on here. Bon Appetit!
And, Jane, oh, yes, it'll be still around when you get back.
AGplusone
>Our comments on Bill's post may generate the basis of a section of
>that joint review. I'll post my follow up on AOL (where Bill's note was
>also
>posted) to start off in the next post reply here.
Here 'tis, actually two posts, one an afterthought ... additions, corrections,
arguments, other slants, etc., gleefully awaited!
Subject: Re: Next Meeting Annoucement & Topic
Date: Wed, 25 August 1999 08:43 AM EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:AGplusone">AGplusone</A>
Message-id: <19990825084352...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
BPRAL22169, on names, et al.:
> VALENTINE refers to Valentinus or "St. Valentine," of which there are
two
>(or possibly three, depending on which text you consult).
Actually, I've found eight (plus one uncannonized Pope who lasted about 40 days
and did nothing we know about). One, not wishing to start anything, was a
priest martyred along with his disciple named Hillary. Osfucation seems to have
been the rule with this Saint. Do you have a good reference for the recitation
of the activities of the Valentine or Valentinius associated with what later
became 'gnosticism' or 'antinomialism' Bill?
> MICHAEL is more direct – it is a Hebrew name that means simply "he is
like
>God." Its relevance to the story seems to need no further explication.
Perhaps ... a note: St. Michael the Archangel is identified with the Church
Militant, of necessity and historically. In the Eastern Church he is not
considered an 'archangel' at all, rather his order is considered the same as
Lucifer's (seraphim or cherubim, or whatever is the highest one). What,
exactly, is "like God"? What does that mean? Is Valentine Michael the archangel
Michael as Patty guesses and Foster intimates? Or is 'Valentine Michael'
really the second coming? I think this conceit is the one that drives
fundamentalists mad. Some Christians believe that the 'second coming' doesn't
result in immediate lifting up of all souls to Heaven, only those that have
already died, rather a millenium then occurs on Earth with Christ dwelling
among humanity again, ruling them, and only afterwards is there the final
judgment and everlasting result. They find support for this in the Last Gospel
of
John, although there is no description of what goes on during this millenium
following the second coming. Just thought I'd throw that one in ....
> ... an indirect evocation of Mark Twain.
I've read someplace, or been told, cannot recall at the moment which one, that
Heinlein was a collector of rare Twain works at the time he wrote SiaSL. There
were, before SiaSL, other satires of religion in English, Swift's scathing
business about its meddling in politics in the 'little-endian, big-endian' wars
from Gulliver comes to mind; but I can think of none quite so scatching as
Heinlein's. Mark Twain had some written, but not officially
published, although I know for a fact that 'unpublished' copies of some of his
stuff was in circulation prior to 1961 (e.g., "1603" the one with the vulgar
language about Queen Elizabeth I's Court).
In his will, Twain directed that his Trustee confer with his daughter Clara
regarding administration of his literary productions, meaning unpublished
works. Around 1937-38, the late Bernard DeVoto was selected to go though the
unpublished works and recommend what should be published. He prepared some
works, 'ready for the printer,' but when Clara saw it she objected to
publication of what is known as "Letters From the Earth," on the ground that
this
presented a distorted view of her father's ideas and attitudes. The project was
accordingly dumped, until the 50th anniversary of Twain's death, 24 years later
when Clara Clemens withdrew her objections, but the works were known in
scholarly circles (and no doubt, there were bootlegged copies), in about 1960
and "Letters from the Earth" were published in March 1962.
There is nothing regularly read today that comes to my mind in English before
Heinlein's SiaSL, unless one counts "Letters from the Earth," (or perhaps
Ingersol's and Thomas Huxley's essays, if you count them as regularly read)
like SiaSL for its scathing denunciation of the mores of Christianity,
especially the so-called orthodox conservative view Christianity has toward
sex.
>Masons among us assure us that the ceremonial references shed no light on
>Jubal's name or role.
The name of the bibical character is merely mentioned at one point in passing,
as a relative of Tubalcaine, in Masonic rituals. Both, however, if it matters,
are decendants of Caine, as the name indicates. The Bible indicates they are
seven generations from Adam, if that number signifies anything.
>It is quite unlikely that he was privy to highly secret ceremonial
information.
I continue to be unwilling to bet big bucks either way on this likelihood or
non-likelihood. Of course, 'highly secret' is a matter of relative belief for
most Masons. The problem is sifting the wheat from the chaff of various
'disclosures' made in the past.
> There is no actual evidence that European Freemasony was ever connected
>with Templarism, but a highly romantic mythology connecting them was offered
>in the 19th century and has become part of the pop mythology of Freemasonry.
When Heinlein was fourteen years old, the Order of DeMolay was founded in his
home town of Kansas City. The 'romantic mythology' as Bill refers to it quite
correctly was used by Freemasons who founded that Order as an organization for
boys aged (then) 14-21, exclusive, to give the organization a panoply of
mystery for the boys whom they sought to entice into membership. Jacque de
Molay was the last Grandmaster of the Order of Templers, and with two
lieutenants, after he confessed under torture then repudiated his confession,
was burnt to death by Philip on an island used regularly for the purpose of
such executions in the middle of the Seine in Paris. We haven't been able to
show any membership, but then again we haven't been able to show Boy Scout
membership during that time either. Complete records of both organizations no
longer exist for that time and place.
>One of the heathen practices of which the Templars were accused was that
>they worshiped in the Jerusalem chapter house a floating head, or a picture
>of a head, Baphomet, that represented Satan. A tv documentary on the Shroud
>of Turin a few years ago suggested that the head was actually the face part
>of the Shroud, [snip the rest]
And you thought I was simply trying to confuse everyone with the reference to
Veronica's Veil in the Burke novel, didn'tcha, Bill? VEG! The tradition
involving St. Vernonica's Veil (I'll be rereading all four Gospels later this
month), if not expressed in one of the four gospels, is she wiped His Face on
the way to the Hills of Skulls, and that Face left an image in the Veil.
> ANNE. St. Anne is the mother of Mary, and therefore the grandmother of
>Christ.
St. Anne (or, in Hebrew, Hannah) according to tradition was barren, much like
Sara, Abram's wife. They prayed and she became pregnant with Mary at quite an
advanced age.
> DORCAS means "doe" a deer, a female deer. Re a drop of golden – no,
wait,
>wrong work of fiction. The most prominent Biblical story concerning a Dorcas
>is the charity of a seamstress who took care of widows and orphans. This
>name may thus point back to Freemasonry. Who will help the widow's son?
> Dorcas does.
Dorcas herself is a widow and she has a son. Her son is a "widow's son." See
Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King" for an idea what that phrase implies to
Masons. Dorcas' daughter, "Fatima Michelle," is named, of course, after
Mohammed's daughter and Michael.
> AGNES, however, means "lamb," as in sacrificial animal, and Agnes
Douglas'
>role is to be martyred, by a comment by a ministering angel.
St. Agnes was an early Christian martyr and is identified substantially with
Virginity. The story goes she was tortured to renounce Christianity and was to
be raped as part of that torture, but the rapist was paralysed, literally and
medically speaking, permanently, by her holiness. "The Eve of St Agnes," by
John Keats (1818, publ. 1820) refers to her and her feast on January 20th ("Ah,
bitter chill it was!"). She was the patron of young girls, and
so the story goes, could obtain visions of their future husbands by performing
certain rites upon the sacred evening. There's a lot about enchantment and
fortunes in the Keats poem that may refer to something about the relationship
between Agnes Douglas and Becky Vessy.
Lots more in Bill's post .... <g> ...
David
--
AGPlusOne
"I expect your names to shine!"
Subject: Re: Next Meeting Annoucement & Topic
Date: Wed, 25 August 1999 09:06 AM EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:AGplusone">AGplusone</A>
Message-id: <19990825090618...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
Why do afterthoughts always come as, er, afterthoughts:
Bill:
> JOE DOUGLAS seems unremarkable.
His name is *Joseph* Douglas and he is Valentine Michael's formal guardian
(i.e., stepfather).
> AGNES, however, means "lamb," as in sacrificial animal, and Agnes
Douglas'
>role is to be martyred, by a comment by a ministering angel.
St. Agnes, as explained in my earlier post is a symbol of the Virgin. The
"angel" Agnes, Foster explains to Digby, could do any role that was essentially
a Virgin role.
St. Joseph the Carpenter and the Virgin Mary are, of course, Christ's parents
on Earth.
D'oh!
David ... senility settling in alongside blasphamy ...
--
AGPlusOne
"I expect your names to shine!"
Hope those give a little of the enjoyment the orginal post did! :)
Mac
I had to save it and, with a bit of luck, have a chance to really read it this
weekend. What I scanned appears very, very interesting.
Mac
--------------- ---------------------
AGplusone wrote in message <19990825042744...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
Bart Hammerly
>
> Bev
I beg you. Learn how to clip. Some people have to pay for their bandwidth.
Bart Hammerly
> Thanks for this post you've recopied.
> I had to save it and, with a bit of luck, have a chance to really read it this
> weekend. What I scanned appears very, very interesting.
> Mac
Et tu, Mac? shame See comments to Bev.
George Houston
Mac <nur09NoS...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:zK7x3.11496$FG4.5...@news1.teleport.com...
> Thanks for this post you've recopied.
> I had to save it and, with a bit of luck, have a chance to really read it
this
> weekend. What I scanned appears very, very interesting.
> Mac
Thanks for reposting the *whole* post, Mac :-<
Couldn't you have snipped just a bit! I have to PAY for online time!
--
George Houston
Any resemblance to actual persons, whether living or dead, is purely
coincidental
AGplusone
> Where did you [r]ead [hear?] that Erle Stanley Gardener had a sybaritic
lifestyle?
I'd prefer to leave this to Philip Owensby to explain in detail, but basically
there is a memo on Stranger by RAH himself (who was a friend of ESG and
frequently visited) that models Jubal's home and lifestyle on ESG's. ESG lived
in a home he designed himself outside Palm Springs, had 3 live-in secretaries
(one of whom was his wife), used numerous pennames ("A.A. Fair," for example is
one I recall), etc., etc. Philip is working on a book or an article that goes
into more detail.
Mac
I apologize.
I shall be more careful of that in the future.
Mac
---------------
George Houston wrote in message <7q3or6$gfm$3...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
>> I had to save it and, with a bit of luck, have a chance to really read it
>this
>> weekend. What I scanned appears very, very interesting.
>> Mac
>
>Couldn't you have snipped just a bit! I have to PAY for online time!
>--
>George Houston
>Any resemblance to actual persons, whether living or dead, is purely
>coincidental
Beverley Eyre
Bart Hammerly wrote:
>
> > Where did you head that Erle Stanley Gardener had a sybaritic lifestyle?
> >
> > Bev
>
> I beg you. Learn how to clip. Some people have to pay for their bandwidth.
> --
> Phoenix
> Cryonics: Food for the Future
Bart,
I don't mind clipping if that's the norm (none of the lists that I'm on
like that. But hey...).
However, telling me that I should 'learn' how to clip, as if
the way I'm proceeding now is due to lack of skill or knowledge
about something so elementary reveals a casual hostility in you
that is very unbecoming.
I'm pointing this out in the hopes that it is not conscious and that,
in fact, this sort of silly hostility is not what you intend.
Bev
Beverley Eyre
AGplusone wrote:
>
> Bev asked:
>
> > Where did you [r]ead [hear?] that Erle Stanley Gardener had a sybaritic
> lifestyle?
>
> I'd prefer to leave this to Philip Owensby to explain in detail, but basically
> there is a memo on Stranger by RAH himself (who was a friend of ESG and
> frequently visited) that models Jubal's home and lifestyle on ESG's. ESG lived
> in a home he designed himself outside Palm Springs, had 3 live-in secretaries
> (one of whom was his wife), used numerous pennames ("A.A. Fair," for example is
> one I recall), etc., etc. Philip is working on a book or an article that goes
> into more detail.
>
> --
> David M. Silver
> AGpl...@aol.com
> "I expect your names to shine!"
This is interesting to me. I've been a fan of ESG for over 30 years. I got fired
from my first job by sitting behind a bush and reading a 'Perry' when I should have
been on the wrong end of an idiot stick working.
I've read A. A. Fair, and I think all the other ones I know of. I've never had
any idea he was a sybarite. How interesting. It doesn't surprise me that RAH
and ESG were friends.
Bev
ddavitt
>
> I've been on the internet since 1988. I assure you that it's not elementary
> netiquette. I don't think there is anything as 'universal netiquette', anyway.
>
> > Some people just can't seem to do it.
>
> Maybe some people don't want to do it. I personally don't mind if that's
> what done here. It's your decision to accept the terms of your ISP, and
> the reality of news groups. If don't have to put out extra effort to save
> you or anyone money. If I do it it's because I want to be helpful to those
> I like. If you give me shit about it, act nasty when I don't,
> or make it seem like an obligation that I owe, then I probably won't
> due to a contrary streak in me. I don't owe you or anyone anything here,
> Jane, so keep your nastyness in check if you want me to play along.
>
>
Bev, once again you have over reacted. Did you miss the smiley?.
Snip or don't snip, suit yourself but I will repeat what I have said here before you
arrived; I won't read a post that has no new material until three pages down. And ones
with interleaved comments are sometimes too much trouble as well.
If you made a mistake in reposting all of David's post ( easily done, hitting send
without reviewing, done it myself ) then you could have just admitted it. If you did it
on purpose then you were being a little inconsiderate IMO. If you think that it's up to
you what you post, OK, that's a POV. The amount each person feels is snippable will
vary of course but to not do it on purpose because people have been nasty to you seems
childish to me.
And any newusers guide stresses the importance of quoting enough to make your reply
make sense and no more.
Jane
Bart Hammerly
> the way I'm proceeding now is due to lack of skill or knowledge
> about something so elementary reveals a casual hostility in you
> that is very unbecoming.
>
> I'm pointing this out in the hopes that it is not conscious and that,
> in fact, this sort of silly hostility is not what you intend.
>
> Bev
Learn how to clip meant learn clipping etiquette. I personally have never been in
a group that minded it. No hostility intended, but an honest plea.
James Yount
| Bev .... Attacked Jane
You are a Cad. She was polite, (as always) and there was nothing to get
snitty about. Stop rationalizing contrary behavior.
>PLONK<
Ogden Johnson III
: > I beg you. Learn how to clip. Some people have to pay for their bandwidth.
: > --
: > Phoenix
: > Cryonics: Food for the Future
: Bart,
:
: I don't mind clipping if that's the norm (none of the lists that I'm on
: like that. But hey...).
:
: However, telling me that I should 'learn' how to clip, as if
: the way I'm proceeding now is due to lack of skill or knowledge
: about something so elementary reveals a casual hostility in you
: that is very unbecoming.
That you don't seem to understand the difference between 'lists', which
are an email function, and the Usenet, with its newsgroups, would seem to
suggest a certain lack of knowledge. Said lack can be remedied, as I have
suggested to you before, by subscribing to the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers long enough to read the FAQs contained therein.
While you are certainly free to heed or disregard some of the netiquette
espoused, you will get an insight into the history and operation of the
Usenet, and what are considered the norms by a large number of Usenet
users, since most of the netiquette recommended is the result of hard
lessons learned by many people.
Users in the UK, Japan, many of the European countries, and elsewhere in
the world pay per minute telephone line charges for their internet
connections; I have seen $50 to $100/month cited as 'typical', and that is
over and above any ISP fees.
OJ III
Beverley Eyre
ddavitt wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> Bev, once again you have over reacted. Did you miss the smiley?.
Smiley's don't remove the intent of an insult to me. It's the "I was
only kidding" brand of bs used by bullies after they try to hurt you.
It's an attempt to escape the penalties properly incurred by their behavior,
and as such seems more contemptible to me, not less. If you don't intend
to insult me, then don't. Don't slap my face and then expect me to smile
afterwards cause you told me you didn't mean it.
To me smiley's have a completely different use.
> Snip or don't snip, suit yourself but I will repeat what I have said here before you
> arrived; I won't read a post that has no new material until three pages down. And ones
> with interleaved comments are sometimes too much trouble as well.
>
> If you made a mistake in reposting all of David's post ( easily done, hitting send
> without reviewing, done it myself ) then you could have just admitted it. If you did it
> on purpose then you were being a little inconsiderate IMO.
I did it on purpose without thinking that there was any problem. Since my access
is free, and has always been free, the problems associated with bandwidth don't
readily occur to me, especially since no other forum I've ever been associated
with has ever made an issue of it.
Since folk here care about it I'll make an effort to snip, unless I have a reason
not to.
> If you think that it's up to
> you what you post, OK, that's a POV. The amount each person feels is snippable will
> vary of course but to not do it on purpose because people have been nasty to you seems
> childish to me.
I think being casually nasty is childish. Far more childish than any possible
snipping behavior.
>
> And any newusers guide stresses the importance of quoting enough to make your reply
> make sense and no more.
>
I've been on the internet long before any such 'guide' was in use.
Bev
Beverley Eyre
I was polite also. I was merely pointing out the realities of
what bullies and people who use nastiness casually to manipulate
others have a right to expect.
I hope that this time your plonk will have teeth behind it.
Having a twerp like you read my posts is not pleasant to
contemplate.
Bev
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
>
>> MICHAEL is more direct – it is a Hebrew name that means simply "he is
>like
>>God." Its relevance to the story seems to need no further explication.
>
>Perhaps ... a note: St. Michael the Archangel is identified with the Church
>Militant, of necessity and historically. In the Eastern Church he is not
>considered an 'archangel' at all, rather his order is considered the same as
>Lucifer's (seraphim or cherubim, or whatever is the highest one).
Interesting, as in the Greek Orthodox Church, as well as the Serbian
and Russian...he is often referred to as an Archangel...and Holy
Tradition, IIRC, indicates that Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer were some
sort of a triumvirate before the fall.
ck
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more
security you have, the less freedom! Niven's Fourth Law)
William Hughes
<fb...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>ddavitt wrote:
>>
>> Bev, once again you have over reacted. Did you miss the smiley?.
>
>Smiley's don't remove the intent of an insult to me.
Flamewar! Another thread to killfile.
BTW, Bev -- you're wrong, Jane's right. Settle it that way.
William Hughes
<fb...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>James,
>
>I was polite also. I was merely pointing out the realities of
>what bullies and people who use nastiness casually to manipulate
>others have a right to expect.
>
>I hope that this time your plonk will have teeth behind it.
>Having a twerp like you read my posts is not pleasant to
>contemplate.
Well, Bev, you've proven that you have nothing to say. I'll join James...
*PLONK*
Beverley Eyre
>
> That you don't seem to understand the difference between 'lists', which
> are an email function, and the Usenet, with its newsgroups, would seem to
> suggest a certain lack of knowledge.
I do understand the difference. I've just never had to deal with
the harsh realities of _paying_ for bandwidth. Not being omniscient,
I don't automatically know about everything that doesn't come within
my sphere.
The knowledge I lack is not snipping, since I have on occasion
snipped, but international prices of bandwidth. Assuming that I
can't do something that I have done, and that is elementary, is
insulting.
Your choosing to interpret this in a way that will extend the
argument indicates that you are a troll, Ogden.
Please stop trolling. It is not helpful to the ng.
>Said lack can be remedied, as I have
> suggested to you before, by subscribing to the newsgroup
> news.announce.newusers long enough to read the FAQs contained therein.
Do the FAQ's have international bandwidth rates? Since I have in the
past snipped, you are again choosing to insult me for the sake of
your ego.
You trolls never stop, do you? Why are you trying to start and
maintain a fight, Ogden?
> While you are certainly free to heed or disregard some of the netiquette
> espoused, you will get an insight into the history and operation of the
> Usenet, and what are considered the norms by a large number of Usenet
> users, since most of the netiquette recommended is the result of hard
> lessons learned by many people.
I'm always open to learing, which is why I said I would comply with
the reasonable request that I snip.
>
> Users in the UK, Japan, many of the European countries, and elsewhere in
> the world pay per minute telephone line charges for their internet
> connections; I have seen $50 to $100/month cited as 'typical', and that is
> over and above any ISP fees.
>
>
Ogden, extending arguments, and trolling in general, is not a good thing
to do. I suggest, in the future, you stop and think about what you are
saying. Is there a possible interpretation of what you object to that
you can respond to that isn't insulting? Please stop choosing the insulting
interpretation as a first choice. You occasionally seem to have things to
say beside trolling.
Bev
Mac
Bart Hammerly wrote in message <37C4FF2E...@gte.net>...
>Mac wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this post you've recopied.
>> I had to save it and, with a bit of luck, have a chance to really read it this
>> weekend. What I scanned appears very, very interesting.
>> Mac
>
>Phoenix
>Cryonics: Food for the Future
Well, all I can say is that I goofed.
Having a teenager about my mind gets scrambled rather easily and
sometimes I forget that there are places which charge for the time using one's
computer and reading such pearls of wisdom as are on this Newsgroup.
It was a matter of forgetting.
Carelessness.
I promise to try and remember and do better.
AND, when I goof again ( as I surely shall ) I don't mind the reminder.
Mac
( Keeping the size of THIS post down by not blathering on. . . )
AGplusone
>Interesting, as in the Greek Orthodox Church, as well as the Serbian
>and Russian...he [Michael] is often referred to as an Archangel...and Holy
>Tradition, IIRC, indicates that Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer were some
>sort of a triumvirate before the fall.
Even more interesting, in the one English language satire I can find that
approaches SiaSL for its scathing denunciation of the pretentions of
Christianity, Mark Twain's "Letters From The Earth," Michael, Gabriel, and
Lucifer continue as a triumvirate after the fall. Twain gets out of the 'how
come Satan isn't forever deprived of the Holy Sight?" problem by gliding over
the Fall and turning it into banishment of Lucifer for a finite, albeit
enormous, time -- eons or millenia, I forget which, but it's finite -- Lucifer
apparently is no stranger to annoying the Boss and has been banished before
(and, judging from the tone in his letters, probably again will be hereafter).
"Letters" are Lucifer's back channel messages to his buddies, Michael and
Gabriel, about this really weird place he finds while serving out his
banishment, i.e., Earth, and the utterly incredible and presumptious things its
pitiful inhabitants believe about their relationship with the Creator, as if He
had time to even be aware of them among the billions and billions of other
stars, planets, and living beings He had created.
Twain was a favorite of RAH; the introduction to Kondo's _Requiem_ describes
the young boy RAH and his older brother looking up and viewing the Comet coming
by on the year of Twain's death; and there's all that business about Maureen
and Ira Johnson visiting him in TSBTS. It's interesting speculation to me to
wonder whether RAH had a bootleg copy of "Letters" (he collected rare Twain,
and "Letters," although prepared by DeVoto for publication in the 1932, wasn't
published until 1962 because Twain's daughter objected they present a distorted
view of her father's views. However, their existence was known, as a Twain
biographer [Paine] reprinted a portion of the first in his biography) and felt
obliged to be inspired by it while writing SiaSL.
If you haven't read "Letters," you should find a copy. It's hilarious and
cutting satire. It was a NYTimes Bestseller for a number of weeks after its
1962 publication.
AGplusone
>Flamewar! Another thread to killfile.
>
>BTW, Bev -- you're wrong, Jane's right. Settle it that way.
And that "thread to killfile" comment PISSES me off! Bev, can you keep your
goddamned fights the hell out of threads I start? I don't start them so you can
screw them up with your childish prattle. Buy a fucking punching bag for
Christsakes!
Wiz
ON: alt.fan.heinlein
BY: Beverley Eyre <fb...@ucla.edu>
>Ogden, extending arguments, and trolling in general, is not a good thing
>to do. I suggest, in the future, you stop and think about what you are
>saying. Is there a possible interpretation of what you object to that
>you can respond to that isn't insulting? Please stop choosing the insulting
>interpretation as a first choice. You occasionally seem to have things to
>say beside trolling.
I will begin by saying that Ogden and I go back a ways, both in this ng and in
others. My knowledge of him (and of his character) would indicate to me that
if there is a troll hereabouts, it is not he.
For the record, I hereby ally myself with Ogden's comments re snippage,
netiquette, etc.
I'm really curious, though; if you (Bev) have trouble dealing with the
criticism you have received for your actions here, why are you still here? Are
*you* trolling?
--
"Roadkill on the Information Superhighway..."
ToV WWIV 4.30 @971.Filenet Loveland, CO
tov {at} altavista {dot} net
Beverley Eyre
William Hughes wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:23:01 -0700, in alt.fan.heinlein Beverley Eyre
> <fb...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> >ddavitt wrote:
> >>
> >> Bev, once again you have over reacted. Did you miss the smiley?.
> >
> >Smiley's don't remove the intent of an insult to me.
>
> Flamewar! Another thread to killfile.
>
> BTW, Bev -- you're wrong, Jane's right. Settle it that way.
Bill, I hope that you don't think that you're siding with
Jane will change my mind? I'm not sure what you think she's
right about since, afaik, we're not disagreeing about anything.
If you mean about smileys, then I'm allowed my interpretation.
Bev
Beverley Eyre
William Hughes wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:25:55 -0700, in alt.fan.heinlein Beverley Eyre
> <fb...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> >James,
> >
> >I was polite also. I was merely pointing out the realities of
> >what bullies and people who use nastiness casually to manipulate
> >others have a right to expect.
> >
> >I hope that this time your plonk will have teeth behind it.
> >Having a twerp like you read my posts is not pleasant to
> >contemplate.
>
> Well, Bev, you've proven that you have nothing to say. I'll join James...
>
> *PLONK*
Thank you Bill. Please, please, don't ever read, think about or reply
to my posts. You're not up to it.
Bev
Beverley Eyre
AGplusone wrote:
>
> Isc2...@flash.net (William Hughes) writes:
>
> >Flamewar! Another thread to killfile.
> >
> >BTW, Bev -- you're wrong, Jane's right. Settle it that way.
>
> And that "thread to killfile" comment PISSES me off! Bev, can you keep your
> goddamned fights the hell out of threads I start? I don't start them so you can
> screw them up with your childish prattle. Buy a fucking punching bag for
> Christsakes!
> --
> David M. Silver
> AGpl...@aol.com
> "I expect your names to shine!"
??????
David, I'm puzzed at your comment. I didn't start anything. I
responded to someone who slammed me. I've said in the past that
I will always respond to bullies and nasty sorts in this way. I
guess it bears repeating.
None of this will change my policy. You're emotion means nothing to me.
If you don't want me to respond, I suggest you tell the nasty folk of the
list to keep it off the list.
I ask anyone who doesn't like my policy of zero tolerance for bullies to
do one of two things:
1) Immediately plonk me. I hope those that will at some time plonk me
in the future will consider doing it now. I won't change, and you'll
keep your blood-pressure in control. You don't need to tell me, unless
you feel the need to.
2) Make some attempt to keep those who like casual nastiness and offhand
insults to stop. This choice would entail challenging some of the 'regulars'
here, and so is beyond the virtues of the moral cowards in the group.
You obviously don't have to take my advice. You can continue to be a bully,
or support the regulars here who are. You can continue to get mad at me for
standing up for myself and others who don't like this sort of rudeness.
I frankly don't care one way or the other.
Bev
David Silver
I copied in the post beginning this thread:
BPRAL...@aol.com wrote elsewhere: ... [snip] ... At various times we have puzzled over
the character names in STRANGER, for we are assured that they are deeply significant. The
first and most obvious is VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH. Heinlein made a practice of combining
notable first names with common last names (as Woodrow Wilson Smith, Andrew Jackson
Libby, etc.), so this may be a cue that Valentine and Michael are intended to be
interpreted as notable. Both Smith and Jones are "everyman." There seems to be no
"Valentine Michael" historical personage. VALENTINE refers to Valentinus or "St.
Valentine," of which there are two (or possibly three, depending on which text you
consult). The earliest led a blameless and somewhat dull life, and nobody knows why he
was canonized. But the second was a Roman Christian priest of the third century a.d.,
leader of the first major heretical movement in what would become the Catholic church. He
was martyred by the church establishment for teaching that the direct, personal
experience of the divine was the important thing in Christianity, rather than submission
to ecclesiastical authorities, a position associated with Gnosticism and, later,
antinomialism. Among other heretical doctrines, he also taught that sex was a route to
the divine. The early church had already lost its "agape" orientation at that time, and
Valentine's teachings were intended, in part, to return to the simplicity and directness
of what we now call "primitive Christianity." Some of his followers, however, made much
whoopee. Valentine was suppressed, but his charismatic movement was so widespread in the
early church (one estimate says his followers were about a third of all Christendom at
the time) that he could not be simply suppressed. Instead, he was sanitized by
identifying him with the Roman early spring festival of Lupercalia, in which the old
Romans had taken much opportunity to make whoopee on and around the ides (15th) of
February, and his feast day was set on the day of his death February 14 (269 a.d.).
[snip the remainder for the time being]
*Whew* I'm sure i missed some -- anybody else want to pick up the ball? W (Bill
Patterson)
I asked Bill on another board if he had a clearer reference to this "Valentinus" since
there are so many 'Valentines' listed in the various Lives of the Saints. He'd misplaced
his notes (in the middle of a move from Illinois to California) and said he was working
from memory.
What I've found on the internet is this (normal cautions apply for internet
research--anyone can put pretty much whatever they feel like saying on a website):
There seems to be at least a consensus that in early Christianity there was a certain
"mysticism" trend which found expression not only in the letters of Paul and the gospel
of John but in the writings of some early fathers later declared heretic. These later
declared heretic viewed matter as evil and the spirit as good.
Compare: the discussion between Jubal and Sam in Chapter XXXV (perhaps an echo here of
side conversation that might have gone on during a 'last supper'?) regarding the apparent
setback caused by the loss of the Temple to the fire-explosion, and Sam's comment to
Jubal that "we are challenging everything from the sanctity of property to ..." etc.
The movement was called the Gnostic heresy. One site
(http://pw2.netcom.com/~rose68/Mysticism.html) observed: "Scholars still debate the
origins of Gnosticism, but most Gnostics thought of themselves as followers of Christ,
albeit a Christ who was pure spirit. The mysticism of the Gnostics can be seen in the
religion of Valentinus, who was excommunicated in about AD 150. He believed that human
beings are alienated from God because of their spiritual ignorance; Christ brings them
into the gnosis (esoteric revelatory knowledge) that is union with God. Valentinus held
that all human beings come from God and that all will in the end return to God. Other
Gnostic groups held that there were three types of people--'spiritual,' 'psychic,' and
'material'--and that only the first two can be saved."
Does any of the above sound like "Thou art God!" from Stranger?
I cannot yet confirm elsewhere that Valentinus was martyred by the orthodox Fathers. What
appears is this (from The Catholic Encyclopedia, recopied at
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/15256a.htm): "Valentinus, the best known and most
influential of the Gnostic heretics, was born according to Epiphanius (Haer., XXXI) on
the coast of Egypt. He was trained in Hellenistic science in Alexandria. Like many other
heretical teachers he went to Rome the better, perhaps to disseminate his views. He
arrived there during the pontificate of Hyginus and remained until the pontificate of
Anicetus. During a sojourn of perhaps fifteen years, though he had in the beginning
allied himself with the orthodox community in Rome, he was guilty of attempting to
establish his heretical system. His errors led to his excommunication, after which he
repaired to Cyprus where he resumed his activities as a teacher and where he died
probably about 160 or 161. Valentinus professed to have derived his ideas from Theodas or
Theudas, a disciple of St. Paul, but his system is obviously an attempt to amalgamate
Greek and Oriental speculations of the most fantastic kind with Christian ideas. He was
especially indebted to Plato. From him was derived the parallel between the ideal world
(the pleroma) and the lower world of phenomena (the kenoma). Valentinus drew freely on
some books of the New Testament, but used a strange system of interpretation by which the
sacred authors were made responsible for his own cosmological and pantheistic views. In
working out his system he was thoroughly dominated by dualistic fancies." [... and the
article goes on to pick apart Gnosticism's lack of orthodoxy.]
The Catholic Encyclopedia leaves out at least one salient fact. At the death of Pope
Hyginus [c. 136-140 A.D.], Valentinus seriously competed with Anicetus for election as
Bishop of Rome, which of course even at that early date maintained its supremacy claims.
Later (he remained in Rome for at least twenty years after losing the election says one
authority, not the eleven the Catholic Encyclopedia leaves you to figure out), "his
errors led to his excommunication" after which he "repaired" [what an incredible
statement! bespeaking no particular hurry] to Cyprus where he "resumed his activities as
a _teacher_" and where he died "probably" in about 160 or 161. There is mention of one
Lives of the Saints I found of one very early "St. Valentine" in this second century,
C.E., who was a "Bishop" and who was martyred "in Africa" with 'twelve' companions, but
no further detail is given. Britannica also notes Valentinus was associated with
Alexandria, Egypt in more than merely his early stuides. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes
that "While Valentinus was alive he made many disciples, and his system was the most
widely diffused of all the forms of Gnosticism" Between Nero and the middle of the Third
Century (Diocletian, I think) there were no truly significant pogroms by the Romans'
government against Christians. Local disorders may have been another matter.
While it's possible that Anicetus' minions had Valentinus killed "in Africa" (see the
reference to Alexandria, above), I think at the stage of research I am able to reach thus
far this is speculation.
It's not until around mid-Third Century that the other St. Valentines, the other martyrs,
begin to appear. The date February 15, 269 A.D. is that of one (or possibly two) of those
martyrdoms, a priest and bishop north of Rome, during Diocletian's reign. They are the
ones associated with renaming of the gate into Rome as St. Valentine's Gate. Martyrs
named Valentine continue on into the Fifth Century. The business of what was heresy
hadn't yet been thoroughly sorted out, as is evident from the fact that priests and
bishops of the Third Century were still taking or being named Valentine. It wasn't until
the Fourth Century that the "orthodox" [from the Greek, meaning 'straight thinking']
defined their orthodoxy.
The final blow in this arena was struck in the fourth century when Athenasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, once and for all set forth what he claimed to be THE four "true" gospels of
the New Testament. Of this process Athenasius proclaims: "I bring before you the books
included in the Canon, and handed down and accredited as Divine. These are the fountains
of salvation. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to
them, neither let him take away." See: Gnosticism in Early Christian Belief" at
http://www.csudh.edu/philosophy/gnos.htm.
What is significant here is that one of the rejected Gospels, the "Gospel of Truth," a
mediation on personal religious experience, was written by Valeninus. It is among those
discovered in December of 1945, quite accidentally, at a place called Nag Hammadi in
upper Egypt, when a local peasant happened upon a red earthenware jar containing 49
treatises, [of which 5 were duplicates] which were Coptic translations of original Greek
documents which have been dated as far back as 120 A.D. Bound in 13 leather volumes, the
Nag Hammadi documents themselves have been variously dated between the 3rd and 5th
centuries A.D. The basis for this determination is in part derived from scraps of trash
paper used to stiffen the bindings of the manuscripts. These fragments were dated
business notes and tallies that place them in the 4th century. [This discovery is not the
same as the "Dead Sea Scrolls," containing writings of the Essenes, which occurred two
years later.]
The question in my mind is what information about this RAH could have had in the period
from about 1946 when he started to 1960 when he concluded SiaSL. The discovery was widely
announced, but the Egyptian government kept very limited access to those documents until
the 1970s.
One little story told about Valentine: globe-trotting became popular in the Ninetheenth
Century. There is a shrine to St. Valentine north of Rome. The Italians like to entertain
tourists of course. So legends are collected about the saints to whom various shrines are
dedicated. Here's one published about "a" St. Valentine there:
Story of St. Valentine "The story of Valentine's Day begins in the third century with an
oppressive Roman emperor and a humble Christian Martyr. The emperor was Claudius II [er,
maybe Diocletian]. The Christian was Valentinus. Claudius had ordered all Romans to
worship twelve gods, and had made it a crime punishable by death to associate with
Christians. But Valentinus was dedicated to the ideals of Christ; not even the threat of
death could keep him from practicing his beliefs. He was arrested and imprisoned. During
the last weeks of Valentinus's life a remarkable thing happened. Seeing that he was a man
of learning, the jailer asked whether his daughter, Julia, might be brought to Valentinus
for lessons. She had been blind since birth. Julia was a pretty young girl with a quick
mind. Valentinus read story of Rome's history to her. He described the world of nature to
her. He taught her arithmetic and told her about God. She saw the world through his
eyes, trusted his wisdom, and found comfort in his quiet strength. "Valentinus, does God
really hear our prayers?" Julia asked one day. "Yes, my child, He hears each one." "Do
you know what I pray for every morning and every night? I pray that I might see. I want
so much to see everything you've described for me." "God does what is best for us if we
will only believe in Him," Valentinus said. "Oh, Valentinus, I do believe! I do!" She
knelt and grasped his hand. They sat quietly together, each praying. Suddenly there was a
brilliant light in the prison cell. Radiant, Julia screamed, "Valentinus, I can see! I
can see!" "Praise be to God!" Valentinus exclaimed, and he knelt in prayer. On the eve of
his death Valentinus wrote a last note to Julia, urging her to stay close to God. He
signed it, "From your Valentine." His sentence was carried out the next day, February
14, 270 A.D., near a gate that was later named Porta Valentini in his memory. He was
buried at what is now the Church of Praxedes in Rome. It is said that Julia planted a
pink-blossomed almond tree near his grave. Today, the almond tree remains a symbol of
abiding love and friendship. On each February 14, Saint Valentine's Day, messages of
affection, love, and devotion are exchanged around the world." Source:
http://www.travel.it/relig/saints/valent.htm
This is the sort of standard pablum a live of a Saint would contain, and very appropriate
to the role of Valentine Michael, had RAH been paging though a Lives to find an
appropriate name. The business about the heresy would take a little more digging, but he
probably knew about the heretic before he started digging.
David M. Silver
--
AGpl...@aol.com or agpl...@loop.com
Beverley Eyre
David Silver wrote:
>
>
> The movement was called the Gnostic heresy. One site
> (http://pw2.netcom.com/~rose68/Mysticism.html) observed: "Scholars still debate the
> origins of Gnosticism, but most Gnostics thought of themselves as followers of Christ,
> albeit a Christ who was pure spirit. The mysticism of the Gnostics can be seen in the
> religion of Valentinus, who was excommunicated in about AD 150. He believed that human
> beings are alienated from God because of their spiritual ignorance; Christ brings them
> into the gnosis (esoteric revelatory knowledge) that is union with God. Valentinus held
> that all human beings come from God and that all will in the end return to God. Other
> Gnostic groups held that there were three types of people--'spiritual,' 'psychic,' and
> 'material'--and that only the first two can be saved."
>
> Does any of the above sound like "Thou art God!" from Stranger?
This sounds pretty conclusive to me. Unless someone comes up w/ something
better, this seems to be where 'Valentine' comes from, as well as 'Thou art God'.
<snip scholarly stuff>
>
> This is the sort of standard pablum a live of a Saint would contain, and very appropriate
> to the role of Valentine Michael, had RAH been paging though a Lives to find an
> appropriate name. The business about the heresy would take a little more digging, but he
> probably knew about the heretic before he started digging.
>
> David M. Silver
>
That was great. You make me want to persue historical study.
This stuff is fascinating.
Bev
ddavitt
>
> If you haven't read "Letters," you should find a copy. It's hilarious and
> cutting satire. It was a NYTimes Bestseller for a number of weeks after its
> 1962 publication.
>
>
I just picked one up in a thrift store last week and am looking forward to reading
it.
I can't say that Twain is one of the authors I discovered via Heinlein references;
I grew up reading Tom Sawyer, but I could say that I have extended my acquaintance
due in part to Heinlein's obvious affection for his writing.
Jane
Prnzofthvs
>If you don't want me to respond, I suggest you tell the nasty folk of the
>list to keep it off the list.
>
>I ask anyone who doesn't like my policy of zero tolerance for bullies to
>do one of two things:
>
>1) Immediately plonk me. I hope those that will at some time plonk me
>in the future will consider doing it now. I won't change, and you'll
>keep your blood-pressure in control. You don't need to tell me, unless
>you feel the need to.
>
>
>2) Make some attempt to keep those who like casual nastiness and offhand
>insults to stop. This choice would entail challenging some of the 'regulars'
>here, and so is beyond the virtues of the moral cowards in the group.
>
>
>You obviously don't have to take my advice. You can continue to be a bully,
>or support the regulars here who are. You can continue to get mad at me for
>standing up for myself and others who don't like this sort of rudeness.
>
>I frankly don't care one way or the other.
>
>Bev
Sheesh! I go away for a week, and you manage to get yourself in all kinds of
trouble, once again! What am I going to do about you? Why won't you learn that
you aren't allowed to take offense at the churlish comments directed at you?
YOu have to huddle and flinch, remember? I hope I don't have to point this out
to you again!
Steve
"You got to stand for somethin', or you'll fall for anything."
Aaron Tippin
ddavitt
>
> David, I'm puzzed at your comment. I didn't start anything. I
> responded to someone who slammed me. I've said in the past that
> I will always respond to bullies and nasty sorts in this way. I
> guess it bears repeating.
>
> None of this will change my policy. You're emotion means nothing to me.
> If you don't want me to respond, I suggest you tell the nasty folk of the
> list to keep it off the list.
>
> 2) Make some attempt to keep those who like casual nastiness and offhand
> insults to stop. This choice would entail challenging some of the 'regulars'
> here, and so is beyond the virtues of the moral cowards in the group.
>
> You obviously don't have to take my advice. You can continue to be a bully,
> or support the regulars here who are. You can continue to get mad at me for
> standing up for myself and others who don't like this sort of rudeness.
>
> I frankly don't care one way or the other.
>
> Bev
I apologise to the group for attempting to defuse another row with a post which I
intended to be reasonably light hearted ( see smiley). I have obviously fanned the
flames I wanted to quench and the group has had to sit through another tantrum. Sorry
people.
Bev, I have renamed this thread to keep the original thread clear. Neither Bart nor
I insulted or bullied you. Ogden is not a troll and this ng is not composed of people
who enjoy intimidating people. Your perception of events seems flawed to me. You are
so touchy that you will flare up at absolutely nothing yet you claim not to be
bothered by what people say.
To you, politeness seems to be an option not a duty. I saw you digging yourself into
another hole, extended a helping hand and you treated it like a raised fist and
called me a bully. You then escalated the discussion into an incredible series of
allegations and insults, all without any basis in fact.
I am sick and tired of your temper dominating this ng, as it seems to have done in
the few weeks that you have been here. I am not going to continue this discussion
after I have sent this post. I want to talk about RAH not BEV.
One final word of advice; on this ng, smileys after a comment mean, "the preceding
sentence was said in a joking way, not intended to be taken seriously". If you
mistrust this you will find yourself with a lot of "insults" to avenge.
Jane
Pixelmeow
>I apologise to the group for attempting to defuse another row with a post
>which I
>intended to be reasonably light hearted ( see smiley). I have obviously
>fanned the
>flames I wanted to quench and the group has had to sit through another
>tantrum. Sorry
>people.
No apology necessary, Jane, the peacekeeper doesn't need to apologize for her
work. You can't be expected to read this person's mind, after all!
>Bev, I have renamed this thread to keep the original thread clear. Neither
>Bart nor
>I insulted or bullied you. Ogden is not a troll and this ng is not composed
>of people
>who enjoy intimidating people. Your perception of events seems flawed to me.
>You are
>so touchy that you will flare up at absolutely nothing yet you claim not to
>be
>bothered by what people say.
>
>To you, politeness seems to be an option not a duty. I saw you digging
>yourself into
>another hole, extended a helping hand and you treated it like a raised fist
>and
>called me a bully. You then escalated the discussion into an incredible
>series of
>allegations and insults, all without any basis in fact.
>
>I am sick and tired of your temper dominating this ng, as it seems to have
>done in
>the few weeks that you have been here. I am not going to continue this
>discussion
>after I have sent this post. I want to talk about RAH not BEV.
Hear, hear! (or is that "Here, here!"?) Even plonking this [deleted] hasn't
gotten rid of his acrimony, it's bleeding into everything else and spoiling the
fun for lots of other people. I think we all need to plonk the [deleted]!
>One final word of advice; on this ng, smileys after a comment mean, "the
>preceding
>sentence was said in a joking way, not intended to be taken seriously". If
>you
>mistrust this you will find yourself with a lot of "insults" to avenge.
Well, some people can't take a joke, I guess. We do a lot of ribbing here, but
we are comfortable with each other. When we welcome someone new here, we try
to include them. When someone comes along with such thin skin, and wants to
jump on us for the way we are, well, I guess *they* are who needs to leave.
(boy, was that terrible grammar...) Anyway, thanks for the effort, Jane, but
unfortunately I think you're wasting your time. This person isn't interested
in contributing, he's just looking for a fight, or something. If everyone
ignores him, he'll eventually go away...
--
~teresa~
^..^ "Captain! I must protest! I am *not* a merry man!!!" quoth Worf. ^..^
"Blert!" (Eat the .cat.nip to email...)
Drumbo
<snip>
> Your choosing to interpret this in a way that will extend the
> argument indicates that you are a troll, Ogden.
>
> Please stop trolling. It is not helpful to the ng.
>
> You trolls never stop, do you? Why are you trying to start and
> maintain a fight, Ogden?
>
>
> Bev
Gracious and esteemed a.f.h.'ers and Bev:
I have attempted to follow net etiquette recommendations by allowing
this post to simmer overnight and most of the day in my drafts folder
before posting. I have since revised and edited it heavily to remove the
most offensive language and needless ad homs. Alas, I can't in good
conscious leave my 2 cents unspoken, so please stop reading now if you
find riot act reading uncomfortable.
Francis Beverley: If you had actually _read_ David's (AGplusone) initial
post you would have seen that the post began with the words: "I am
recopying from elsewhere", as well as the fact that at the end it was
attributed to "(Bill Patterson)".
Instead you ignoramously asked: "Did you do that off the top of your
head? Or research any of it? <sic>" and brilliantly continued with, "I
dont' <sic> have much to add . . ." That was an understatement! Did
you read it, you repugnant ogre, or did you just see an opening to jump
back on your nudnik soapbox? What was that you said about Richard being
a "shallow, vacant crank" a while back? You did not snip David's 236
lines of text when you posted, you callously wasted bandwidth by
reposting it in toto and then took offense when Bart and Jane pointed it
out and suggested very politely that you get a clue. Bart said, "I beg
you. Learn how to clip. Some people have to pay for their bandwidth."
That's all he said. That was an acceptable, polite, reasonable request,
not a "casual insult" or a "slam". You have started reinterpreting
other's words again and spewing your prosaic insults at random. You've
been rude to Jane and you've called OJ a troll (after calling him a
baffoon previously)! This is totally unacceptable behavior bev. If you
had bothered to read last week's posts you would know that it is exactly
this kind of stunt that is causing OJ III to consider dropping a.f.h.!
You are a shrill, repulsive knuckle head!
(Forgive me Jani - even if bev convinced you that "forgiveness" is
impossible or stupid or whatever foolishness he was spouting about the
subject. I know I promised to be nice in your absence, but you called
bev "bossy" and suggested that he thinks we are all stupid, before I
ever engaged him in cyber combat - he is impertinently bossy, and a
self-centered ignorant grating bully to boot.)
Bev: No one cares how long you've been on the internet or how many
groups you've been tossed off of (you learned nothing, your are an
imbecilic, abhorrent, loathsome, inutile, ignoramus), no one cares what
you think you know about bandwidth or ISP rates around the world (you
are the lowest of cyber-slime, an indolent nuisance), no one cares about
your personal ng "policies" (you can put your "policies" the same place
you have your head: up your crusty oozing ass), no one cares about your
bitching and bossing (you are not the king or moderator, simply an
empty-headed dimwitted instigator) no one cares about songs you wrote in
the 80's (Zappa indeed, how dare you compare your noisome nursery rhymes
with a respected master like Frank! May he R.I.P.), no one cares about
your sentence fragments, inarticulate lousy grammar and atrocious
spelling dood (working on a Ph.D. at UCLA, Ha! What has our educational
system come to?), and no one; abso-f-ing-lutly no one cared when you
started a worthless, wasteful thread called "Back & Lazy" and announced,
"I've been not reading the posts (ouch, how did you make it through high
school?) for about a week" and, "I have about 400 post <sic> to read to
catch up, so I've decided not to." Who cares? No one cares Bev! You
write like a 4th grader and you are indeed a torpid cyber-pest.
Many folks here _do_ care that you are not concerned about anyone except
yourself! We care that you resort to ad homs, name calling and foul
language with no regard for netiquette, manners or common courtesy. We
care that you, as a newcomer to a.f.h. have attempted to co-opt the
group for your own abrasive soap boxing. We care that you think that
each of us must "earn" your respect and not vice versa. We care that you
played a major role in starting the explosive Evolution debate (and the
volumous exasperating cross posting that resulted) and then bailed out.
You should read those FAQ's OJ suggested and take the hint. Who's the
troll?
I'm convinced you are 1.)a lowly 'gofor' intern at JPL if not a janitor
2.)a strident troll 3.)an obtuse idiot. You are a clueless newbie and
you have instigated acrimony since you first darkened the door of our
friendly pub. You have ruined David's first attempt to discuss the names
in SiaSL and the occult tie-ins that I asked about weeks ago (and I
actually happen to know a bit about the Knights Templar and want to
discuss it, yet I cannot pass up this opportunity to tell you what I
really think). I only wish J.T.A. was currently here to drop-kick you
out on your exceedingly dumb ass or Randi, to erase you with her
cancle-bot. I invite anyone to check your posting history at deja and
count the times you have 1.) pushed the discussion hopelessly off-topic
2.) taken offense at imagined insults 3.) insulted well-meaning
regulars, et.al.
I can't stand you, and I won't anymore. Go trolling elsewhere!
>PLONK<
- drumbo the "fookin' mad, retarded monkey, callow twerp, scumsucking
dipsh*t, sad, sick f**k and f-witted simpleton" according to bev's
previous childish ad homs at me. I'm still a stich.
"You farking bastage. You som'o'bish. You ice-hole."
"He was charged with murdering the English language."
- from Johnny Dangerously
ddavitt
the Fosterites?
It is very interesting to see the way the reader is led by the nose IMO. Initially we see
them as OTT evangelists, brash and common. Dotty and husband going to heaven at a pre
determined time introduces a slightly more sinister note. I never did quite work out all the
implications to that. Why did they decide to commit suicide? How would it have been
organised? There seems to be a very real fear of the Fosterites in society; they have made
themselves above the law to a large extent; very scary. Interesting to note that the English
Fosterites are small but militant!
Jubal, whose eyes we are encouraged to rely on, is tolerant of most religions but even he
draws the line at the Fosterites; not his social equals he thinks.
The visit to the temple confirms all our worst pre conceptions, we meet Dawn and, this time
through Jill's eyes, we are given a judgement that she is a squirming hussy with bedroom
eyes....in fact, the Mary Magdalene in the story, a sinful woman who recanted.
Then, as Mike matures, the focus shifts. Patty, who is introduced as a friend of Mike and
Jill's, close enough to be initiated into their secrets, turns out to be a Fosterite who is
one of their most respected followers. How can this be reconciled? Mike dismisses the
Fosterite bible yet later draws upon it to form his own version of the path to truth. Dawn is
shown to be a true, sincere fan of Jubal, a twin sister to Jill, physically and mentally, one
of the elect.
It could be said that in turning to Mike, Patty and Dawn renounce their Fosterite leanings,
so there is no conflict but I don't think that this really happens. It seems to me that they
expand their sphere of worship. In fact, I would imagine that a lot of the Fosterites in
perhaps the middle layers, would make good Nesters.
To sum up, I think there is a hint that active, militant religions who set themselves outside
the code of society are to be seen as dangerous. I always assumed that the crowd which killed
Mike was probably salted with Fosterites. Yet there is an ambiguity about the way they are
portrayed in the book. Basically, Jubal and Jill are wrong about people ( Mahmoud and Dawn)
and yet we continue to accept them as voices of authority. What else was Jubal wrong about?
This is a bit rambling but I'm tired; birthday parties with four year old guests are not for
the weak...<g>
Jane
David Hawk
Drumbo wrote in message <37C859D2...@geocities.com>...
>alot of things he had to get off his chest<
I, um, was content with just filtering him. But this works too.
David Hawk
Ogden Johnson III
>This is a bit rambling but I'm tired; birthday parties with four year old guests are not for
>the weak...<g>
Indeed, ready for a bit of adult conversation?
I am have to duck out on the specifics of your post, it has been too
long a time since I last read SiaSL to delve into specifics. So I
will content myself with the first impressions I had when it first
came out in paperback, and I read it.
Remember that when RAH was first writing this, he was writing it at a
time when the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, the 'Christian
Right', the heavy influence of evangelicals of various persuasions
were non-existent, or at least not visible on the skyline.
Taking it from that standpoint - the world *I* grew up in, the
Fosterites come across as a neat 'thought experiment' on RAH's part.
We, naturally, take our first impressions from Jubal's
reactions/thoughts. But then the church gets to speak for itself,
when the Bishop [?] points out that sure, they have gambling, and
drinking, in the church - why not, isn't it better to have the flock
doing it there, where there is a chance to lead them to the light,
than somewhere outside of the church? Which was true of much of the
hypocrisy I saw growing up in the '50s. Sit in the church on Sunday
morning, listening to the sermons about such things as drinking and
gambling, having spent Fri and Sat night gambling and drinking in the
nightclubs on Rt 301 in southern MD or in boats moored at piers coming
off the VA shore [technically putting them in southern MD].
RAH then goes on, via Jubal et al, to make it clear where his 'thought
experiment' has problems.
This, IMHO, is yet another example of where the societal changes since
a given work was written, have rendered portions of RAH's works a bit
incomprehesible to some of his younger readers. Don't get me wrong,
I think his overall themes still convey, it is just that some of the
things he uses to bring them out are sometimes hard to understand in
the world of the '90s, and soon to be '00s, than in the '50s, 60s, or
even early '70s.
Heck, for me the world of the '30s was incomprehensible in the '50s,
going by the movies on Sunday afternoons - all those BB musicals, and
'drawing room' comedies, etc. Looking back from, as I said, the '90s
almost '00s, it has become all of a piece - a time and a world that is
a long, long, ways away now.
[Use cpcug dot org for email. This was posted using a trial ISP.]
AGplusone
I said, incorrectly in part:
>> DORCAS [snip] The most prominent Biblical story concerning a
>Dorcas
>>is the charity of a seamstress who took care of widows and orphans. This
>>name may thus point back to Freemasonry. Who will help the widow's son?
>> Dorcas does.
>
>Dorcas [in the Bible] herself is a widow and she has a son. Her son is a
"widow's son."
>See
>Kipling's "The Man Who Would Be King" for an idea what that phrase implies
>to
>Masons.
And the incorrect part:
>Dorcas' daughter, "Fatima Michelle," is named, of course, after
>Mohammed's daughter and Michael.
Fatima Michelle is the daughter, of course, of Maryim. I keep making the same
mistake Ben Caxton makes, thinking Dorcas married Stinky.
Dorcas will indeed also have a son (Michael has grokked it will be a boy), to
be named "Dennis" and posthumously so she'll be a 'widow' with a 'widow's son'
in SiaSL as well as the Bible.
Now this gets us to the thus far unmentioned kiddies' names (Fatima Michelle,
Maryam's daughter by Michael was already discussed):
"Abigail" dauther of Anne and Michael, from the Hebrew: "abigayil," literally
"father is rejoicing." It also used to be an English slang term for a lady's
maid, from the Beaumount & Fletcher character in _The Scornful Lady_ 1616 (but
I don't suppose that allusion is intended).
"Dennis" son of Dorcas and Michael, a varient form of "Denis," simply a
masculine name, but also 3rd Century martyr, patron Saint of France, saint's
day October 9. [This probably means back to the Saint's Lives].
But then there is also "Zenobia" --because Abigail's name is really Abigail
Zenobia, and Anne went from "Abigail" to "Zenobia" in deciding what to name her
and wound up with both. The significance of this set of names is particularly
remarked by Jubal--he wonders if mommie knows have very appropriate indeed they
are. Besides "A" to "Z" in the Alpha Omega sense, what does that mean?
Zenobia is another one of those puzzles. Dictionary only notes it's a woman's
name, but also notes who "Zenobia" was, i.e., Queen of Palmyra, a desert Arab
Queen, who led a revolution against Rome, ca. 275 A.D., capturing Egypt, etc.,
before being put down. There's quite a lot about her on the internet, but only
one thing here I'll mention.
HEBREW, ARABIC (and ARAMAIC} speakers please pay attention (I need your help):
"Zenobia" is a Romanized form of the Queen's real name which is rendered
variously, by the Library of Congress' index as:
Septimia Bathzabbai, Queen of Palmyra
Zineubyea, Queen of Palmyra
Zaneubyea, Queen of Palmyra
Zaynab al-Zabbea., Queen of Palmyra
Septimia Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra
Bat Zabbai, Queen of Palmyra
Bath Zabbeay, Queen of Palmyra
Zabbea., Queen of Palmyra
Settinia Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra
Septimia Zenobia, Sebaste, Queen of Palmyra
Sebaste, Septimia Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra
Notes: Enc. Brit., 1980 (Zenobia; in full Septimia Zenobia; Latinized
form of Aramaic Bat Zabbai; d. after A.D. 274; queen of Palmyra from 267 or 268
to 272); Enc. Amer., 1980 (Zenobia; queen of Palmyra; r. 267-272)
"Bet" (or Beth) "Zabbai" (or Zabbeay) is the part that fascinates me. Bet or
Beth means daughter in Hebrew IIRC ... but "Zabbai" in Aramaic is what? Can
that be the same word as the Hebrew one that is also rendered "Shaddai" as in
"El-Shaddai"?
That would make Zenobia mean "daughter of God."
Otherwise, I need lots of help with the various varients mentioned above.
--
David M. Silver
AGpl...@aol.com
ddavitt
>
> Remember that when RAH was first writing this, he was writing it at a
> time when the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, the 'Christian
> Right', the heavy influence of evangelicals of various persuasions
> were non-existent, or at least not visible on the skyline.
>
> Taking it from that standpoint - the world *I* grew up in, the
> Fosterites come across as a neat 'thought experiment' on RAH's part.
> snip
>
> This, IMHO, is yet another example of where the societal changes since
> a given work was written, have rendered portions of RAH's works a bit
> incomprehesible to some of his younger readers.
>
> snips here and there
Is a true classic then a story that can be read decades later with the message still unambiguous
and crystal clear? Or is this an impossible standard?
I take your point that the televangelists would still have been in their infancy but the
revivalists who are their ancestors go back a long way surely? I have read many stories set in 19
th century America when the evangelist comes to town and a wave of hysterical religion sweeps the
community, only to die back as he departs.
Actually, I have personal experience of this; a bible tent used to appear on a field near my
house when I was little;once a year in the summer. Stories, songs and a ticket for attending. The
implications passed us by; it was just something to do in the evening but it was the juvenile
version of the meeting Alex attends at the end of Job.Without the finish of course!
I suppose the difference is in the scope; affecting one small town for a week doesn't compare
with keeping the frenzy whipped up nationwide on a daily basis. And it requires an escalation of
emotion that ends in the travesties I sometimes watch, slack jawed with amazement, for 30 seconds
or so before switching channels very quickly.
Jane
Bart Hammerly
Wow! Did you have something to say?
What is "inutile"? It isn't in my Concise Oxford.
David Hawk
Bart Hammerly wrote in message <37C8D86F...@gte.net>...
>
>What is "inutile"? It isn't in my Concise Oxford.
>--
>Phoenix
>Cryonics: Food for the Future
Hey! It's not in my Oxford American edition either!
DH
Bryan R. Stahl
news:7qbf73$c7u$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
From the OED:
inutile
Useless,of no service, unprofitable.
It appears to have gone out of use, except as an
occasional Gallicism, before 1700, and is marked as
obsolete in Dicta.; but of recent years it has come into
use again, perh. as a readoption from French.
--
Bryan
"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that
certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very,
very few persons." --James Thurber
Merfilly8
>>--
>>Phoenix
Random House---"useless, of no use or service"
Filly
How many licks does it take to get
to the center of a tootsie roll pop?
David Hawk
Merfilly8 wrote in message <19990829105940...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
D'oh! I should have been able to parse it. In+utile - unable to be used,
useless.
Oh, well, my brain is out tot he cleaners and all I have is this worn out
spare...
David Hawk
Ogden Johnson III
<atwi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bart Hammerly wrote in message <37C8D86F...@gte.net>...
>>What is "inutile"? It isn't in my Concise Oxford.
>Hey! It's not in my Oxford American edition either!
Score one for Prentice Hall Press and their Websters NewWorld
Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, 1986
Inutile, adj., useless; unprofitable. inutility, n.
Take that, Oxford!
OJ III
[Although we haven't heard from Grey and his OED CD yet.]
Randy J. Jost
> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
> >
> > Remember that when RAH was first writing this, he was writing it at a
> > time when the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, the 'Christian
> > Right', the heavy influence of evangelicals of various persuasions
> > were non-existent, or at least not visible on the skyline.
[snip]
> > This, IMHO, is yet another example of where the societal changes since
> > a given work was written, have rendered portions of RAH's works a bit
> > incomprehesible to some of his younger readers.
> >
> > snips here and there {by Jane, not by Randy}
>
> Is a true classic then a story that can be read decades later with the message still unambiguous
> and crystal clear? Or is this an impossible standard?
>
> I take your point that the televangelists would still have been in their infancy but the
> revivalists who are their ancestors go back a long way surely? I have read many stories set in 19
> th century America when the evangelist comes to town and a wave of hysterical religion sweeps the
> community, only to die back as he departs.
{snip}
Jane,
I think that you and OJ have put your fingers on a point that we need to remember, and I will give
you _my_ answer to your question concerning a "classic" and tie it to Heinlein.
A classic is a book that comes across "decades later with the message still unambiguous and crystal
clear" to the educated reader, which is what I believe that Heinlein used as his standard for his
readers, at one level or another. Consider Jane's comments about evangelists/televangelists. She
clearly understands certain aspects of the history of this country and the character of its peoples.
And she is not a US citizen, but, she is an educated individual and appreciates the historical
underpinning of this story. Heinlein understood this too, and this is reinforced by his postscript
to the stories that are collected in Revolt in 2100. I understand it too, and it was the genesis of
my post on why I wish Heinlein HAD written those stories.
When OJ refers to younger readers, what he really means (forgive me for putting words in your mouth
OJ) is readers who have no sense of the past or what led up to the here and now. I had already read
"The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" before I was out of 6th grade. My father taught me to read
before entered grade school, using the science and biology books that he used to teach High School
Biology. When I read Heinlein in grade school, I suspect what I got out of it was somewhat different
than the usual juvenile reader. But everyone can get something entertaining to educational to
thought-provoking out of almost everyone one of Heinlein's works.
It seems to me that even most of Heinlein's Juveniles were written on several levels, and while one
level could easily be understood and enjoyed by "young" readers, older readers could/should continue
to perceive much in re-reading these works due to the reader's increasing maturity and
understanding. This is a rare talent in writers, and one of the things I like about Heinlein's
writings. Think of books like Citizen of the Galazy, Space Cadet, Tunnel in the Sky, etc. These
stories work at so many different levels. In fact, one could almost claim that Heinlein's works are
{dare I say it?}Biblical, in the sense that they offer a touchstone into a person's psyche, because
they can be interpreted in many different ways, dependent upon the reader's life experiences,
education and maturity.
Looking forward to other people's thoughts.
Randy
--
Randy J. Jost, PhD, PE
rj...@zianet.com
Mac
ddavitt wrote in message <37C935B9...@netcom.ca>...
>Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
>>
>> Remember that when RAH was first writing this, he was writing it at a
>> time when the Moral Majority, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, the 'Christian
>> Right', the heavy influence of evangelicals of various persuasions
>> were non-existent, or at least not visible on the skyline.
>>
>> This, IMHO, is yet another example of where the societal changes since
>> a given work was written, have rendered portions of RAH's works a bit
>> incomprehesible to some of his younger readers.
From Jane:
>I take your point that the televangelists would still have been in their infancy
but the
>revivalists who are their ancestors go back a long way surely? I have read many
stories set in 19
>th century America when the evangelist comes to town and a wave of hysterical
religion sweeps the
>community, only to die back as he departs.
field near my
>house when I was little;once a year in the summer. Stories, songs and a ticket
for attending. The
>implications passed us by; it was just something to do in the evening but it was
the juvenile
>version of the meeting Alex attends at the end of Job.Without the finish of
course!
----------------------------
In the United States, during the late 20's. 30's, and even into WW-II there were
several of the traveling tent evangelists. Then several of the "Preachers" who
used that new-fangled invention, the radio. I think two which Heinlein might
have mentioned in other contexts were Billy Sunday and Aimee McPherson ( I may
have her last name wrong). These, and others, had a tremendous impact upon a
substantial portion of the population.
My personal opinion is that Heinlein would be aware of such and extrapolate his
next story. Then, when the Tele-Preachers came about, as an extension of radio,
current events were beginning to catch up to his story.
And now, decades later, the story still stands.
However, I have one minor item to add: it stands for a reader who is somewhat
aware of the history of their country, of the world. In this country I have been
repeatedly surprised that several kids who have finished a basic education not
only do not know who Jack Benny is, but that they don't know Abbott and
ostello ---------- but they also do not know of Jack London, or in two glaring
instances ( kids who did well in school ) did NOT know who Ghandi was. And none
of them knew of Billy Sunday, or Aime McPherson or what the "strange fruit"
hanging from the tree Billie Holiday sang about. Hell, they don't know who Billy
Holliday is, or Cab Calloway or. . .
The story Heinlein stands but it does require that the reader be aware of some
ascpects of history of the past several decades.
Mac
Mac
[Middle French] *inutile* ---learned borrowing from Latin
Mac
------------------ -------------
David Hawk wrote in message <7qbf73$c7u$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Bart Hammerly wrote in message <37C8D86F...@gte.net>...
>>
>>What is "inutile"? It isn't in my Concise Oxford.
>>Phoenix
>>Cryonics: Food for the Future
>
>
>
>