Rumba All the Way to Sunset

Re: Venki

Continuing the story ...

suppose Eva gets the holoview of her father`s vacation from the Dream Maker. It contains the exact state of mind of her father, and she can experience it completely. To her father, his last vacation with his wife, whom he loved very much, was very close to a mystical experience.

Does that imply that Eva can have the same mystical experience?

Isn`t then there an ``objective`` truth to that experience, that is no longer bound inside the head of the person who experiences it?

Isn`t myticism then ``mystical`` only because our neurons are not inter-connected??

regards

Re: Kafir

Thanks for the compliments. I started off by asking myself how would the future generations treat their elderly? People from traditional cultures take care of their elderly and keep them a part of their families. In some other cultures old people stay with other old people, away from their families.

I think your comment about the flatness of the characters is very perceptive. It was partly intended by me (the other part being attributable to my writing skills... :) ). I wanted to create a world where one`s existence as a part of a larger society was accepted, like an article of faith, since only faith can allow a person to accept voluntary death, one`s own or one`s parent`s.

I sometimes wonder, how flat and lifeless our lives must be, when looked through the eyes of our ancestors?

And then the issue of death itself. How we look at it. Our immediate mortality being tied up with an immortality, one way or another. Whether it is an immortal divinity or an immortal humanity.

That gets very interesting -mortality being the engine of desire.

regards

Re: Wasiq

Wasiq, I cross-posted by mistake my response to Kafir, for the Science vs Religion article of Dawkins. Although the two topics are different, there is an element of mortality that you are trying to deal with in this story that I would like to take a crack at.

``Isn`t then there an ``objective`` truth to that experience, that is no longer bound inside the head of the person who experiences it?``

The `universal subconscious` (Jung?) where our thoughts and experiences exist like waves in an ocean can be tapped by anybody else. So yes, I agree this `objective` truth can be picked up by another who is attuned to it. In short, thought-waves and mind reading as a sense, just like sight or sound could be developed I guess.

``Isn`t myticism then ``mystical`` only because our neurons are not inter-connected??``

Let me deal with the above statement on its own merit without tying it to the above story. Mysticism has nothing to do with the brain or the mind. In fact the mind is the veil that obscures the vision of the transcendent, which is the ONE without another. The mind is the `projector` that has to keep running for us to see the `film` of life. When the mind is stilled, then you `see` the changeless. Neurons are nothing but the circuitry of the mind and can ulimately only perceive matter in all its manifest forms including perhaps the whole Electro-Magnetic spectrum.

Regards

However, I would argue that even spirituality, mysticism, and tanscendentalism are at odds with science as an epistemology. Spiritual and mystical experiences are completely subjective, only meaningful to the person who experiences them, and are no proof of `Truth` to anyone else. Mysticism is NOT a science in that a mystical observation or experience cannot be verified independently by another party.

There is no basis of measurement, no universal standard, so its method is not scientific.

Re: Kafir

On the contrary, `mystical experience` goes beyond the subject and object. The subject and object become one. The experience and the experiencer become one without another. The moment the trancendent is put into words it enters this world with its dual nature of subject and object and cause and effect and hence suffers from diminution. As an analogy, imagine trying to explain to a born blind person the colours of the rainbow, the green of the trees or the bright yellow of the midday sun. How ever you describe it, the colours are not going to be perceived the same by the born blind person. But if you were to give sight to that person, then that person can see the colours the same as you do. Same with the trancendent, the methodology can be scientific and the truths can be verified by anybody, if they are willing go through the established theorems, go through the rigors of setting up the experiments and finally through the intense labor of working out the solutions. No amount of description in words (because of the limitation of speech) is going to evoke the trancendent and will only appear subjective and depend on the capabilities of the individual (like the born blind person). But while science is concerned with the mundane and hence essentially limited, although enormously useful, the study of the trancendent and the reaching of the goal (if I may so put it) encompasses everything in the UNITY of itself including science.

Regards,

Venki

The most `humane` and touching thing I`ve seen from you. Fabulous. I saw a glimpse of Arthur C. Clark in your style. The `brain pattern recognition` bit, however, was more Asimov than Clark.

Really enjoyed it. Also your other article, the Curly and Lary one, as I mentioned in a response to Saad`s article, was very well presented. The format was great.

...SR

An engaging, but initially disconcerting story. It reminded me of the 70`s film ``Logan`s Run`` set in a post-nuclear holocaust society where one had to be exterminated at age 30 (your age limit of 88 is a bit more compassionate!).

I say _initially_ disconcerting because, after some reflection, I found your scenario of the future to be quite reasonable, practical, just, and compassionate. At first the idea of terminating someone`s life at a set age in order to reuse his/her biomass to create the next generation seems cold and inhumane, but considering the cirumstances of the time, it seems like a fair solution. Quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and the citizens of this society seem to have lived a quality life by the time they have to go on `vacation.`

One thing that bothered me about the story was the flatness of the characters, their one-dimensionality. Perhaps this was intentional, a way of portraying the erosion of individuality and diversity in an overly mechanized society. But I find that the science fiction genre in general suffers from character underdevelopment while concentrating on theme and plot.

Looking forward to more of your thought-provoking creative work :)