Attn:JMS - Are you happy?
Kailin Yu
> It's really been an amazing year so far... Tribulations has been the #1
> read on
> bookface.com for three weeks running, City of Dreams is a bonafide hit on
> scifi.com, we closed the deal for me to write the Rising Stars movie for
> MGM,
> and now the series deal is now in place....
Because you sound it. Not only are you busy, but you seem to be saying
only good, positive things. I know that you have been somewhat busy for
the past year and a half or so, but it seemed like something was
missing, a real fire or something. I don't know, but you would post good
things about upcoming projects, but there would often be little hints at
this or that disappointment along with the good news. But now, you are
practically gushing, and you are all over the net again. So, is it that
you are working on something you are really excited about, or that you
feel validated, or some of both?
Also, on a side note. With the group being down so long, I was unable to
give you a heads up on a few awesome Taiko concerts in Little Tokyo. One
of them was two weeks ago during the Tofu Festival, and was this
incredible performance by Madadaiko Aska Gume. Aside from drums, they
also have some Kabuki and mask dances that are visually stunning to
watch. The other event is coming up this coming weekend, Sept. 2 and is
going to be an all day Taiko festival at the Japanese American theater.
There will be some 7 or 8 drum troupes, some from Japan, participating
in this event. I'm beginning to learn there is more to Taiko than just
KODO, so I thought I would pass that info along to you.
--
Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,
Kailin
********************************************
Crusade for a Cure, A Call to Arms against AIDS!
To help in this year's campaign visit us at:
http://www.ulyssesfoundation.org/c4ac/
********************************************
Jms at B5
>you are working on something you are really excited about, or that you
>feel validated, or some of both?
I would suspect it's a combination of things. In Excalibur it was said, of
Arthur, the king and the land are one; when one suffers the other suffers; when
one flourishes, the other flourishes.
With me, it's always been a case of "joe and the work are one; when one suffers
the other suffers; when one flourishes, the other flourishes."
I'm at my best when I'm doing a lot of things, when the work is solid, and it's
been appreciated by people in the industry, and the number of new coming gigs
kind of validates the work that went before...and, though I know it shouldn't,
it kind of validates me *to* me. I'm a writer, I define myself as such, so my
self image and the work are inextricably interwoven. This is not always a good
thing, but by the same token it is not always a bad thing.
So on balance...yeah, I'm happy. Most days. Like you, there are some days I'm
most emphatically NOT happy. I try not to go on line during those moments
because I'm not fun to be around. But in general I'm more happy than not.
And after Crusade, it wasn't so much that I wasn't *happy* as I was *pissed*.
I knew what that show was going to become, what it could be, and I was mainly
angry at the loss in terms of talented cast members, the stories we would have
told, and so on.
But I never once considered that it would be a long-term problem. Every show
runner takes a year or so to get another project going because if you do the
math, there are 10,000+ WGA members, of which a large number are producers,
and, what?, 25 or 30 network series, of which most already have show runners
attached. It takes time for a slot to come open. Many EPs have spent as much
as 2-3 years between gigs. In this case it's just about a year, and that's
very good...not to mention that there's been a lot of other work in the
interim, the Murder She Wrote TV movie, the comic, the radio dramas, that sort
of thing.
And, I must confess, there's a very small part of me that is happy knowing that
there are some people who will be absolutely annoyed to hear that I'm doing
well. It's a definite character flaw on my part...but it's one I can live
with.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Tammy Smith
the junk on TV always seems to win, so it's nice to see someone who
wants to do good work succeed in the end for a change.
I ordered Tribulations from Dark Tales--can't wait to read it!
Tammy
Jerome
It is truly amazing to ponder that throughout most of history, humans have been mostly illiterate expect for a privledged few. Yet society progressed and the culture of the species expanded at a wondrous pace. The education of generations immediately previous was impressive considering the limited access to information and knowledge. You would think that in this age of libraries within minutes of most homes, vast media resources flowing into homes in staggering amounts and now the internet, which offers an unprecidented amount of human knowledge at the dance of fingers, that we would be witnessing the birth of a new age of intellect, wisdom, spirit and overall enlightenment. The common human should be fraught with great thoughts, hungers for knowledge and greatness and should exude the quintessence of our most learned ancestors' ideal! Yet in the end, today, we cannot underestimate the power of the lowest common denomenator to appeal and hence prevail.
At the end of the day, all pontifications aside, all we are left with is to ask "why"?
Nathan Shafer
>
> It is truly amazing to ponder that throughout most of history, humans
> have been mostly illiterate expect for a privledged few. Yet society
> progressed and the culture of the species expanded at a wondrous pace.
A "wondrous pace." Hm. Would you include in that the roughly 1000
years of ignorance, misery and superstition that enveloped Europe
between the fall of Rome and the beginnings of the Enlightenment?
Or the how many thousands of years between the rise of the biologically
modern human, and the first literate civilization?
> You would think that in this age of libraries within minutes...[etc
> deleted] that we would be witnessing the birth of a new age of
> intellect, wisdom, spirit and overall enlightenment.
One might think that...if one had never met another human being, or
at least never met one outside the circles of the aforementioned
"privileged few."
> The common human should be fraught with great thoughts, hungers for
> knowledge and greatness...yet in the end, today, we cannot under-
> estimate the power of the lowest common denomenator
>
> At the end of the day, all pontifications aside, all we are left with
> is to ask "why"?
Because, at the end of the same day, for the hubris and lofty dreams,
you and I, and everyone else, are still apes with oversized brains.
Three thousand years of culture cannot wipe out millions of years of
breeding for stronger, tougher, more aggressive competitors, all going
tooth and claw for the few berths on the Good Ship Procreation.
That's why.
- N.
Shaz
"Nathan Shafer" <sha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39AC2B...@earthlink.net...
> Jerome wrote:
> >
> > It is truly amazing to ponder that throughout most of history, humans
> > have been mostly illiterate expect for a privledged few. Yet society
> > progressed and the culture of the species expanded at a wondrous pace.
>
> A "wondrous pace." Hm. Would you include in that the roughly 1000
> years of ignorance, misery and superstition that enveloped Europe
> between the fall of Rome and the beginnings of the Enlightenment?
> Or the how many thousands of years between the rise of the biologically
> modern human, and the first literate civilization?
We've GOT one? Where?
> > You would think that in this age of libraries within minutes...[etc
> > deleted] that we would be witnessing the birth of a new age of
> > intellect, wisdom, spirit and overall enlightenment.
>
> One might think that...if one had never met another human being, or
> at least never met one outside the circles of the aforementioned
> "privileged few."
Sadly, very true.
> > The common human should be fraught with great thoughts, hungers for
> > knowledge and greatness...yet in the end, today, we cannot under-
> > estimate the power of the lowest common denomenator
> >
> > At the end of the day, all pontifications aside, all we are left with
> > is to ask "why"?
>
> Because, at the end of the same day, for the hubris and lofty dreams,
> you and I, and everyone else, are still apes with oversized brains.
> Three thousand years of culture cannot wipe out millions of years of
> breeding for stronger, tougher, more aggressive competitors, all going
> tooth and claw for the few berths on the Good Ship Procreation.
>
> That's why.
Nice turn of phrase but, apparently, I abandoned ship.
Shaz <no kids, and don't want them either. With my temper I'd make a lousy
mother.>
Jerome
Nathan Shafer wrote:
> A "wondrous pace." Hm. Would you include in that the roughly 1000
> years of ignorance, misery and superstition that enveloped Europe
> between the fall of Rome and the beginnings of the Enlightenment?
I didn't say it was constant; or that there weren't setbacks. More, it was a comment that there has been remarkable progress at times when the vast bulk of the population was illiterate and had little no no access to ANY books or sources of learning.
BTW - the superstition didn't end 1K years post Rome. :-)
> Or the how many thousands of years between the rise of the biologically modern human, and the first literate civilization?
Admittedly, things took a while to first get rolling. That's always been an interesting notion. We've seen entire technological and social systems rise and fall and rebuilt in the span of 5000 years, yet it appears it took 10 times that to even get started. That's another story, however...
> One might think that...if one had never met another human being, or
> at least never met one outside the circles of the aforementioned
> "privileged few."
Exactly. Although the "privledged few" to which I referred were those from dozens and hundreds of years ago; who were the only ones to have access to learning. In sharp contrast, even virtually the least privledged families in this country have some level of access to schools and books.
> Because, at the end of the same day, for the hubris and lofty dreams,
> you and I, and everyone else, are still apes with oversized brains.
> Three thousand years of culture cannot wipe out millions of years of
> breeding for stronger, tougher, more aggressive competitors, all going
> tooth and claw for the few berths on the Good Ship Procreation.
Nicely put. But I wonder if that fully explains it. Sure, it could be something deeply innate in us. Yet despite how primitive we can be, we've built socities, philosophies and technologies. There's obviously something in some of us which strives towards enlightenment. It would seem that the more information and knowledge you make available to more people, you would find more and more people embracing that desire for enlightenment.
One is led to postulate that perhaps the desire for enlightenment is the provence of but a few. That the changes for millions of years of which you speak which enlarged our brains and proelled us towards thought are best manifested in a minority at present. That we stand at an evolutionary nexus where societies built on agression are finally giving way to entire socities of the thoughtful. That we stand in the richness of the invention of the new wave while being threatened by the last breath of life of a dying breed of human. If so, it is yet to be seen whether the richness of human thought can sustain the onslaught of a very prolific ignorance.
Jerome
Shaz wrote:
> > Or the how many thousands of years between the rise of the biologically
> > modern human, and the first literate civilization?
>
> We've GOT one? Where?
LOL!
Maybe it should be reworked to read "and the civilization in which a few leaders were literate" :-)
> Nice turn of phrase but, apparently, I abandoned ship.
>
> Shaz <no kids, and don't want them either. With my temper I'd make a lousy
> mother.>
Actually, most of the people ON said ship are the exact ones who choose to not partake in the wealth of knowledge now available to them.
If it's a genetic propensity, the future of humanity indeed looks grim (at least will get worse until it will get better)
Nathan Shafer
>
> [T]he "privledged few" to which I referred were those
> access to learning. In sharp contrast, even virtually the least
> schools and books.
So now, the category of "privileged few" has changed from what you
describe to the small "elite" who are brought up in a subculture that
emphasizes erudition and scholarship, or at least the appearance of
such. This subculture is defined by, among other things, the resources
to afford higher education and the leisure time to spend on the life
of the mind.
In other words, it's no longer a question of access to schools and
books, but rather an upbringing that attaches value to them.
> despite how primitive we can be, we've built societies, philosophies
> and technologies.
Despite how scorchingly hot lava can be, it develops a cool crust
on top that can be safely walked upon, at least in spots.
> It would seem that the more information and knowledge you make
> available to more people, you would find more and more people
> embracing that desire for enlightenment.
That strikes me more as wishful thinking than an honest assessment of
the behavior of real people in the real world. One can scarcely
imagine a century in which more information and knowledge have been
available to more people, yet this has easily been the bloodiest, most
murderous century in recorded history, from Auschwitz to Rwanda with
stops along the way in the Ukraine, Cambodia, and Uganda.
More knowledge simply doesn't do it; all it does is make murder and
rapine easier and less costly to accomplish. What is required is a
transformation of the human spirit - an erasure, if you will, of the
"Original Sin" which seems to simply be our heritage as beasts of
the savannah and jungle.
> One is led to postulate that perhaps the desire for enlightenment is
> the provence of but a few.
I think you need to make up your mind as to what you believe about the
human tendency toward enlightenment; this statement stands in direct
contradiction to the portion I have quoted above.
> We stand at an evolutionary nexus where societies built on agression
> are finally giving way to entire socities of the thoughtful.
Again, this sort of thinking seems to stand cheek-by-jowl with the
small child who thinks, "Surely Santa Claus will bring me a pony THIS
year!"
> ...we stand in the richness of the invention of the new wave while
> being threatened by the last breath of life of a dying breed of human.
Dying how? What is killing this breed of human? Certainly not the
proliferation of data.
I think you still don't understand. WE are the "dying breed of human"
- you and I, and everyone else on this group. We just happen to be
fortunate enough to have a veneer of literacy and civilization on us.
We are apes wearing frock coats. Put us in a situation where our
education and manners have no survival value, and we will either die,
or adapt and revert to our true natures. That, I think, is the appeal
of a television show like "Survivor" - the "will they or won't they?"
suspense of whether or not the castaways would go Darwinian on each
other.
- N.
Jerome
Nathan Shafer wrote:
> In other words, it's no longer a question of access to schools and
> books, but rather an upbringing that attaches value to them.
Yes - either an upbringing that attaches value to those things or whatever makes a person hunger for them.
As recent as a century ago, things were radically different in this country, not to mention other so-called "civilized" countries. For the majority, it was a question of access. Now access is no longer nearly such a problem in modern nations. Yet we see people choosing to not pursue learning. In general, we could blame our primitive baser instincts or a problem with modern society, but HOW have these things affected us et al?
> > despite how primitive we can be, we've built societies, philosophies
> > and technologies.
>
> Despite how scorchingly hot lava can be, it develops a cool crust
> on top that can be safely walked upon, at least in spots.
At least lava, when you give more of it exposure to the air, you get more crust.
> > It would seem that the more information and knowledge you make
> > available to more people, you would find more and more people
> > embracing that desire for enlightenment.
>
> That strikes me more as wishful thinking than an honest assessment of
> the behavior of real people in the real world.
That's exactly how it was meant; that optimistically, we would have hoped for such. At least in theory, we might have expected it to some degree. Yet when we look around and make an honest assesment, we see that is clearly NOT the case. We're always talking about humankind developing along with science and technology. Yet when we look at it realistically, we know the future isn't so optimistic. JMS had a better view of humanity than some. In his works, humans have some major stumbles ahead before we actually evolve. Even after a major triumph of the "noble", our warring nature manages to bring us to our knees in a future time.
> More knowledge simply doesn't do it; all it does is make murder and
> rapine easier and less costly to accomplish.
Agreed. But... books and communication do more than just provide knowledge. They provide access to the thoughts and the spirit of others. Training for the mind and spirit, if you will. It's available to us; to expose ourselves to the thoughts of the giants which came before. To expose ourselves to the thoughts of those we don't understand.
> What is required is a
> transformation of the human spirit - an erasure, if you will, of the
> "Original Sin" which seems to simply be our heritage as beasts of
> the savannah and jungle.
It would appear perhaps part of the problem is that our hatred and fear of the "different" outwieghs our desire to understand it. That could explain some of the disparity between our current age of information and the ages of isolation. The isolation allowed certain groups to funnel their fears into distinct groups. One city state against another. One country against another. One race or religion against another. At no time in history has humankind been more productive and more powerful than when united against a common enemy. Now, however, we're becoming one bid planet trying to get along. Yet our fears won't let us. We don't apply ourselves to become better to overcome our enemies. Rather, we get groups more interested in subverting their enemies, even at the cost of knowledge. People are more interested in identifying themselves with a group they consider "theirs" than they are in understanding humanity et al better.
> > One is led to postulate that perhaps the desire for enlightenment is
> > the provence of but a few.
>
> I think you need to make up your mind as to what you believe about the
> human tendency toward enlightenment; this statement stands in direct
> contradiction to the portion I have quoted above.
No - before I was talking about AVAILABILITY of information, communication and books yesterday and today. In the above statement I was talking about human propensity. Anyway, some statements are speculation and hypothesizing. Offering two different ideas that conflict doesn't mean I've ever adopted one as "truth".
> > We stand at an evolutionary nexus where societies built on agression
> > are finally giving way to entire socities of the thoughtful.
>
> Again, this sort of thinking seems to stand cheek-by-jowl with the
> small child who thinks, "Surely Santa Claus will bring me a pony THIS year!"
Only if you presume the more advanced thinking humans will come out on top!
As for theorizing there are some humans whose attitudes, propensities and talents are where evolution has been trying to take us, it is an idea with merit. We observe people with radically different ideas towards agression and learning. Perhaps it's society. Perhaps it's just a random distribution. But compare it to a group of people who get taller over the ages. At first it just appears to be some are taller. But then you find more and more tall people as the shorter ones grow rarer. Perhaps such has been ocurring in the mind. Perhaps it helps explain why dozens of millenia passed from the development of "modern" humans before our first written language, the first civilizations or the first significant advancements. Perhaps it's because humans have been advancing towards this, even amoung anatomically modern people.
Sadly, though, current trends in propigation could be reversig this direction.
> > ...we stand in the richness of the invention of the new wave while
> > being threatened by the last breath of life of a dying breed of human.
>
> Dying how? What is killing this breed of human? Certainly not the
> proliferation of data.
Well, before the modern age, human communities more capable of developing advancements survived much better. But evolution usually only marches forward when there is a modicum of isolation between communities, not to mention the fact the less capable communities would fail. Today, we have yet another problem arising from being "one big community".
Not that we couldn't come up with solutions if we would actually WORK TOGETHER and become the best individuals we can be. Right now we're stuck in the middle.
> I think you still don't understand. WE are the "dying breed of human"
> - you and I, and everyone else on this group.
Please don't say I don't understand because you don't understand what I'm saying. Maybe I don't understand. But from where I sit, trying to communicate our ideas sufficiently to each other is the bigger problem. I know the onus is upon me to express myself clearly, but I see more lapses of communication than I do lapses of reason.
Case in point - I agree we are the "dying breed". NOW. But before this, it might have been the other way around. In the past, forces were at work that gave smarter humans an advantage. Yet now that which makes us smart actually causes us to avoid the same procreation that others get themselves into by being dumb!
> We just happen to be fortunate enough to have a veneer of literacy and civilization on us.
Well stated. The creations of "the few" is the vestage of the whole of humanity....
> We are apes wearing frock coats. Put us in a situation where our
> education and manners have no survival value, and we will either die,
> or adapt and revert to our true natures.
True. But consider sheer procreation. As I said earlier, we're in a SOCIAL situation where stupidity results in more children. There are "nature survival" situations and there are "social propigation" sitations.
> That, I think, is the appeal
> of a television show like "Survivor" - the "will they or won't they?"
> suspense of whether or not the castaways would go Darwinian on each other.
True. But the way it was set up, it was also a bit of a popularity contest combined with eliminating the greatest threats. It had a layer of society placed upon it.
I could never really get into that show, though, because some things they did led me to believe very little about it was as real as it appeared.
Iain Clark
Iain Clark
<snip>
> As for theorizing there are some humans whose attitudes, propensities and
talents are
> where evolution has been trying to take us, it is an idea with merit. We
observe people
> with radically different ideas towards agression and learning. Perhaps
it's society. Perhaps > it's just a random distribution. But compare it to
a group of people who get taller over the > ages. At first it just appears
to be some are taller. But then you find more and more tall
> people as the shorter ones grow rarer. Perhaps such has been ocurring in
the mind.
We know why people are getting taller. It's down to better nutrition,
sanitation and medical knowledge. We also know that modern humans are
effectively genetically identical with the first examples of our species who
arose thousands of years ago. We're not evolving on a physical level at
all. The inescapable conclusion (to me) is that society, laws and education
are *all* that stand between us and the most primitive behaviour.
> Perhaps
> it helps explain why dozens of millenia passed from the development of
"modern" humans > before our first written language, the first civilizations
or the first significant advancements. > Perhaps it's because humans have
been advancing towards this, even amoung anatomically > modern people.
>
I'm very interested by these ideas, because I do like to think that humans
are advancing towards a more enlightened state. Unfortunately most of the
time I don't believe it - I think it's more of a mystical idea than one
supported by evidence. Even if we were evolving any more, evolution isn't
*trying* to take us anywhere. It has no morality; it's just a process. If
we see value in some traits and not in others, that's our choice, but it's
wishful thinking to suppose that we're demonstrating those traits more than
we used to.
We simply have not evolved mentally over thousands and thousands of years.
What we have done is created language. That's what allowed us to pass
information from one generation to the next. We also developed the
technology needed to make hunting and gathering unneccessary, and so we
could stay in one place and develop real communities and the ability to
write down language so that information was more easily preserved. In a
nutshell, everything else has just been a gradual accretion of knowledge and
wisdom, with many, many setbacks along the way. It's exponential, which is
why it started so slowly but is developing with greater and greater speed.
What this doesn't do is change us physically. It doesn't guarantee that we
will all behave as exemplary human beings. All it does is create a
civilisation which can set agreed moral standards and punish those who
contravene them. We now have moral safeguards to protect us from our worst
impulses.
> > > ...we stand in the richness of the invention of the new wave while
> > > being threatened by the last breath of life of a dying breed of human.
>
> > Dying how? What is killing this breed of human? Certainly not the
> > proliferation of data.
>
> Well, before the modern age, human communities more capable of developing
> advancements survived much better. But evolution usually only marches
forward when
> there is a modicum of isolation between communities, not to mention the
fact the less
> capable communities would fail. Today, we have yet another problem
arising from being
> "one big community".
>
> Not that we couldn't come up with solutions if we would actually WORK
TOGETHER
> and become the best individuals we can be. Right now we're stuck in the
middle.
I think we have demonstrated the capability to work together - it's patchy
but it's there, or we wouldn't be here now. So I think that as long as we
can keep hold of all the good things we do, and prevent the bad things we do
from dragging us back down, eventually we will create better and better
things. I think modern civilisation is the only way in which we're
advancing, and I do think it's a wonderful thing which has brought
inestimable benefits.
But we tend to look at our societies with blinkers and see only the best
parts, and ignore the rest. We may one day create a "super society" which
minimises crime and violence without sacrificing all the things we value
(hey, it's possible!) but it won't stop us killing and hurting each other.
We'll never get rid of our more primitive impulses unless we tamper with
human beings themselves.
> > We just happen to be fortunate enough to have a veneer of literacy and
civilization on us.
>
> Well stated. The creations of "the few" is the vestage of the whole of
humanity....
>
> > We are apes wearing frock coats. Put us in a situation where our
> > education and manners have no survival value, and we will either die,
> > or adapt and revert to our true natures.
>
> True. But consider sheer procreation. As I said earlier, we're in a
SOCIAL situation
> where stupidity results in more children. There are "nature survival"
situations and there are
> "social propigation" sitations.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't think you can demonstrate that
stupidity results in more children. You might make a case for poverty doing
that, but poverty is only associated with lack of education, not lack of
intelligence.
In any case modern society has been around for such a fleeting length of
time, societies across the world are so diverse, and modern medical care is
so advanced, that these kinds of trends have no meaningful impact on us as a
species.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Jeff Teunissen
[snip]
> This reminds me of my favorite Gandhi quote (which may be apocryphal).
>
> Supposedly, a reported trying to find out what the great soul thought
> of the the rest of the world, asked him, "What do you think of Western
> Civilization?"
>
> Gandhi answered, "I think it would be a wonderful idea."
...which brings me to my favorite Gandhi quote:
"First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you
win."
--
| Jeff Teunissen - Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing - deek at dusknet.dhs.org
| Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :)
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhs.org/~deek/