posted
Skillery...you do know that in writing fiction, every character you create doesn't really exist. Fictio is speculation, and doesn't have to be bound by what you personally believe. That's the biggest problem with your questions. It begins with a wrong assumption.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fiction is speculation, and doesn't have to be bound by what you personally believe.
Sure, but what makes Card's fiction so wonderful is that it is bound by his personal beliefs.
I'll have to read A Storyteller in Zion again to see how he gets his beliefs and his fiction to mesh.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't realize I had a fan base. I think they're just using me and my deep love for LotR parodies to get what they want. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He workd IDEAS into them. Ideas and concepts can be meshed with completely fictionalized concepts. Do think he actually believes ther exist insectoid aliens wandering around with a Hive Mind? Does that make the Speaker series any less truthful? Of course not. But he uses them to convey IDEAS he believes in.
posted
For a little while, when I was first reading some of OSC's fiction, I assumed that he must not be a very good Mormon. I figured there was no way a good Mormon's writing would include so much violence and swearing. I was also bothered by the fact that Ender was baptized Mormon, but he had no real religious beliefs and lived over three thousand years into the future (so much for the "Latter Days" and Second Coming, eh)? I loved Pastwatch, but was bothered by what I saw as an attempt to reconcile religion with history (especially the reference to Noah and the Flood).
But then I read A Storyteller in Zion, and I really got to understand OSC a lot better. I chilled out and realized that they're just books and that not everything in them is a statement of his beliefs. It's possible to write a story just because it's interesting, not because you're trying to tell people your beliefs. In fact, I think interesting stories are much more interesting than belief stories. I've never been even slightly interested in stuff like The Work and the Glory. I actually think it's somewhat tragic that we feel that Mormon fiction has to conform to Mormon beliefs.
But anyway, back to the original question. I don't know OSC well enough to consider him a friend. I've met him in person, and he knew who I was and said that they (he and Kristine) like me, but I don't think that's enough to qualify as a friendship.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
no worries, jon. i'm sure if he got to know you he still wouldn't be your friend. just like the rest of us. Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think he actually believes there exist insectoid aliens wandering around with a Hive Mind?
No. But he probably believes that there are groups of HUMANS that have a hive mentality, or at least a herd mentality. Like you said, metaphor.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just comes across that it's not as much that you don't understand the way OSC writes, it just seems you don't understand fiction writers in general Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, Ender was baptized Catholic, not Mormon. I think it is mentioned in Ender's Game -- Ender's father (Catholic) baptizes him as an infant, and his mother (Mormon) is not happy about it.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Jon Boys sentiments from earlier in the postings. I was always a big fantasy reader but I'm sure the first thing of OSCs I read was Enders Game and then heard about the Homecoming series and was really interested (as an LDS) in the idea of a fantasy series based around events which happen in the Book of Mormon.
(but age is wiping out those brain cells so I could have got my order wrong )
Anyway I loved the first three book but imagine my shock horror when in book 4 we meet intelligent creatures on earth that have evolved. Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe. I really had to force myself to finish the series and didn't enjoy it too much. The only reason I did was probably 'cos I'm the type of person who can't leave anything unfinished - oh and reading is like breathing - just gotta do it!
Anyway the point I'm making in my very long drawn out way is that it was only later after much thinking, and also reading the rest of the Ender series, that I realised that hey its only fiction and he's not purporting to teach people about Mormonism. I've never read "A Storyteller in Zion" but I guess it might help too.
And now thanks to this post I think I might revisit Homecoming sometime in the near future and try to enjoy those last two books.
posted
Ender's mom did give him a blessing - I remember Ender thinking about the holiness of the moment.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:shock horror when in book 4 we meet intelligent creatures on earth that have evolved. Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe.
What do you mean? Are you saying that Mormons don't believe in evolution? Because that would be a surprise to the zoology department at BYU.
Another link from BYU Newsnet.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as far as evolution goes "Man was created in Gods Image" - I don't know about you guys but my ancestors didn't climb out of no primordal swamp or evolve from apes etc.
I guess I do believe in a level of evolution - the development of some intellect/understanding based on acquiring the knowledge of an outcome after a continual process of trying something out. I can't think of a better example right now than those squirrels who can beat any obstacle to get to the food or foxes learning to steal food from bins in towns because they're natural habitats/ food sources have been destroyed.
Plus just because somethings taught at BYU doesn't mean its part of our beliefs - its not as if we bury our heads in the sand - we have to live in the real world and know what its thinking.
But you've made me think which is good. I'll have to delve into it further.
I've never had the chance to meet either of the Card's but I'd love to - being in the UK I@ve probably not much chance though.
posted
There's macro and micro evolution - belief in one doesn't necessitate the belief in the other.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is the idea of God causing us to evolve from the primordial muck so much *less* attractive to people than the idea of God making us out of clay?
I suppose that clay seems more poetic. (Unless one has to scrub it out of the carpets every week--we have nasty red clay soil here in NJ). Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the primordial muck probably WAS clay. Clay is the perfect environment for the growth of microscopic crystalline structures that may have preceded and sheltered the development of DNA. Lipids form on clay as well. Lipids make up the main part of the structure in cellular membranes. It is moist and rich in minerals and organic molecules (anything that contains carbon is considered an organic molecule, whether it came from a living thing or not).
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Working backwards from the assumption that we can grow into eternal beings with our own "Godlike" reposibilities we must assume that our "God" was a being who aquired responsibility for us.
If "He" is anthropomorphic as the LDS religion sets forth it is not implied that he is the final word in form.
Personally I think it is a stupid question. It is clearly possible for human level intellegence to exist in other then human form. We will be able to achieve this within fifty years if we were unethical enough to do it. The belief that human form is perfect and ideal is not only provincial and narrow minded, it also ignores certain basic flaws in human design. The structure of the sinus, the remnant organs that serve no useful functions, the flawed system that makes us hunger for poisons like alcohol and sugar and then makes them into the least useful tissue our bodies can have.
There are flawed genes in every race and intellegence is hardly dolled out evenly across the board.
However I think that it is interesting that Skillery wanted to shake up OSC and see what he is like underneath. Sort of a Gom Jabbar philosophy.
I personally love RA Salvatores Drizz't the Drow books, but when he mangled a Star Wars book in which Chewbacca was killed I sent him a detailed E-mail about what was wrong with it. Not profane or personally insulting, just a list of flaws and how they could have been corrected.
I still buy his Drow books in hard cover, but he has my name on his filters now. That told me that he wants to have an endless stream of praise and encouragement. A bit weak in the ego department for someone who has made millions from writing. Of course he sited spelling errors in my e-mail as proff that what I had to say was not worth his time.
Anyway to sum up, keep shaking people up Skillery that is how you know who they really are, it is also how you become memorable. However if you think that Intellegence can only take human form, then the boys at MIT and the Molly's of the future will make you run screaming to the cellar in a generation. Let alone whatever might be out there.
posted
You know, I've never quite gotten the whole "micro-evolution is real, but there's no such thing as macro-evolution" argument. It seems to me to be about the same as believing in micro-plate tectonics but dismissing macro-plate tectonics.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of fictitious species, Isaiah wrote about satyrs, dragons, and some other really wild stuff.
On the subject of macro-evolution, I will need to see a population where the "range of normal" includes different numbers of chromosomes. I guess we have some of those in humans, but they seldom produce traits that improve survivability. Do double Y humans have normal offspring?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to overcome my bad habit of trying to shake people up.
I'm coming to the realization that a person has no business shaking somebody else up unless they really care about that person and are willing to stick around to pick up the pieces.
In the case of Mr. Card, I really cared about him, but there was no chance to stick around to pick up the pieces because of the limited time available. I should have said something pleasant or kept my mouth shut.
In the case of trying to shake this forum up, I didn't really care what happened here in the Card's living room because I could always drop out. I still wanted to air out my concerns about my bad experience, but I should have eased into the group until I got to the point where I really cared. Caring about the community would have taken the edge off the way I expressed myself.
I'm sorry for having been a jerk.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, speaking of living rooms, I feel like I just arrived at a party where there are a bunch of conversations all going on at once. Which one shall I join? Hmm...
Noemon, am I correct in saying that micro-plate movements occur as a result of macro-plate tectonics? In evolution, the opposite argument is actually being made--that macro-evolution occurs as a result of many tiny mutations (micro-evolution) in a response to the environment or other selective pressures. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't know much about plate tectonics.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shepherdess, that is a pretty good point. Though I guess there is a principle in nature that most observable phenomena occur as a result of an less obvious one. So humans were a long time observing orbits before we came to understand what we think is the reason for them.
Evolution is only partly due to mutations, it is also due to competition for resources, which causes the migrations and separations of populations that result in speciation (according to the Darwinian model).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the flawed system that makes us hunger for poisons like alcohol
Alcohol is not a poison. In moderate doses, it even has several beneficial affects.
In excess it does poison you, but then so does vitamin A.
I don't mind at all that Mormon's have a restriction against alcohol, but it is irritating when they feel this need to make up reasons why it's bad for you.
Next you'll be saying that the wine they drank in Jesus day was only grape juice. (I particularly love that one)
Back to your regularly scheduled program.
[ March 02, 2004, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Noemon, am I correct in saying that micro-plate movements occur as a result of macro-plate tectonics? In evolution, the opposite argument is actually being made--that macro-evolution occurs as a result of many tiny mutations (micro-evolution) in a response to the environment or other selective pressures. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't know much about plate tectonics.
Welcome to Hatrack Shepherdess!
I'm certainly not an expert in plate tectonics either, but as far as I know, there's actually no such thing as "micro-plate techtonics"--there's just plate techtonics. It happens slowly, with the plates shifting a fraction of a millimeter at a time, with the occasional cataclysm causing more dramatic movement.
Now, I'm also not an evolution expert--honestly, I can't think of many things that I *do* consider myself an expert in--but it seems to me that evolution is the same way; I don't see a reason to divide it into micro and macro evolution. It seems to me that the tiny changes accrete, eventually resulting in larger changes (and of course, the occasional cataclysm of plate techtonics could be seen as analogous to the "punctuated" periods in the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution).
Now, like I said, I'm no expert--I could easily be oversimplifying something, or missing something vital. If there is a reason to divide evolution into micro and macro, tell me all about it; I'm always eager to learn.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I just discovered OSC a few months ago (the first book I read was Sarah), and since then his books have been almost my sole source of entertainment. I've read all of the Ender books as well as the Shadow series, Treasure Box, Enchantment, Rebekah, and Maps in a Mirror. I think my favorite was Speaker for the Dead (which I read before Ender's Game). I have a bad habit of reading my favorite authors out of order, because I'll go to the library and just take whatever's available! Its been great to discover the Hatrack community. I've been content with lurking for awhile now, but now I'm ready to move beyond that.
So here goes... In my opinion, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is observed today and macroevolution is not (unlike plate tectonics). We see mutations occuring all the time--almost all of which are deleterious. We do NOT see mutations that lead to one species turning into another one. I consider speciation to be a loss of genetic variation which occurs when a population is separated due to environmental/competitive pressures. The genetic traits which become dominant in one population or another were there all the time and are "naturally selected" out to become more obvious. All living organisms have numerous systems (DNA repair mechanisms, etc.) for preventing changes when DNA is being replicated. Now why would that be? Did nature suddenly "decide" that enough evolution had occurred and so all living organisms from bacteria on up would now multiply only "after their kind?" All the evidence I see points back to a creator who was an engineer/code writer/experimentalist superior to anything we can begin to imagine, and the idea that it just happened minimizes the wonders around us.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did nature suddenly "decide" that enough evolution had occurred and so all living organisms from bacteria on up would now multiply only "after their kind?"
That's got me thinking. Seems like I saw something in Genesis.
Genesis 1:24- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind..."
Do you think that up until that commandment was given, all sorts of strange creatures were springing up and interbreeding with each other and creating strange offspring?
Why did God have to specify "after his kind?" Is that not the natural order of things when organisms are left to their own devices.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a little gem I found on the internet: Satan's Rapid Deployment Force (SRDF)
Revealed At Last! SHOCKING PROOF that Satan is active in the world and working to defeat creationism! Every time that we creationists bring up one of those impossible changes from one created kind to another (macroevolution), the SRDF gets to work and plants in the rocks some fake fossils, carefully "aging" them and putting them in the "proper" strata so that paleontologists can find them in a few years. Then they're shoved in our faces as examples of the major transitions that we know to be impossible.
We said a hyena can't change into a whale. The SRDF gets to work and presto! scientists are digging up Ambulocetus , Pakicetus , Prozeuglodon, and a passle of others. We knew damn well that no lizard ever sprouted wings and feathers, so the SRDF made up those phony Archaeopteryx jobs that were just TOO perfect! I mean, teeth, bony tail, claws on the fingers, along with perfect flight feathers--come on! Since we absolutely wouldn't accept such an obvious fake, now they're throwing in a bunch of others in various stages of birdness, like Protoavis , Sinornis , Hesperornis, and Ichthyornis . They claimed we were all fish, then we grew legs and lungs and crawled out on land--what rot! Where are the transitions? Enter the SRDF, and now we've got Eusthenopteron , Panderichtys, Acanthostega, and labyrynthodonts. And of course the highest priority mission of the SRDF is to "prove" that people are just improved apes (whereas Genesis 2:7 tells us clearly that we are improved dirt). We keep telling them that there are "missing links" between apes and humans, and they keep finding something to fill whatever gap we point out. After all, isn't Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis ) just a little too convenient? Throw in A. ramidus and africanus and then H. habilis and erectus, and it's hard to find much of a gap anymore where a link could be missing.
And now for something I didn't steal (but I'm sure others have thought of it). You remember that giant flood and noah's arc and all that stuff. Well how come two of the most anchient civilizations, the egyptians and the chinese, failed to notice this giant flood that covered the world? lol, am I willing to beleive there was a guy named jesus, sure, most definatly, but I also beleive the bible is an extremely biased history book based on some true events, with lots of awesome and interesting fiction to glue it together.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Micro-evolution is observed today and macroevolution is not (unlike plate tectonics). We see mutations occuring all the time--almost all of which are deleterious. We do NOT see mutations that lead to one species turning into another one.
This is not true, actually. I'll get my biology-teacher friend on here--he can explain this better than I can.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Cards are very nice people -- though I met them only at EnderCon and there is a very small chance that I'll met them again.
Maybe my English is not good enough to really understand, but this word in our language means a very close relationship. It is said that you only know who is your true friend, when you are in trouble, real, deep trouble. While many people from this community surely knows Scott, maybe very closely, someone surely is a real sport, but friend?? Think again.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Card doesn't often mention God in his writing, but there is still a sense that his universe has rules...enforced by someone(?).
I would say that in his writings, the universe has rules, because that's the way the universe works. This goes along with a common LDS belief (I'm not sure if it is actually doctrine or not) that things aren't right befcause God tells us to do them, but God tells us to do things because they are already right.
The God that us Mormons believe in is bound by rules. For instance, He cannot lie, and He cannot change his mind.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yohzik, though I am sure your biology-teacher friend can provide some evidence int the fossil record, or logical speculation, Shepherdess' point remains valid. While we can indeed observe intra-species micro-evolution happening in the world around us, we have not observed any good examples of one species evolving totally into another species to the point where breeding is no longer possible. I would be very interested to see any evidence indicating otherwise.
As for HonestAbe's post, I think its incredibly funny, but just because a clever satirist can mock a group's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that the viewpoint suddenly becomes invalid. Also, to answer your question about the flood, many Christians (including myself and most other Hatrackers) do not believe that the Biblical account is literally accurate when it comes to time periods. That is why the ancient civilizations have no record of a giant flood, though many have a myth or legend based on an ancient flood.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
There are different levels of friendship, true. But I think you take the meaning of the word friend to be a little more intimate than it typically means in English.
From an english dictionary:
1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts. 2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance. 3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade. 4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement. 5. Friend A member of the Society of Friends; a Quaker.
As you can see, there are a lot of definitions. Hope that clears up a little bit.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i wish i could meet him, or at least be there at a speech or workshop of his... it'd be quite an honor. iv been a fan of his for over 5 years straight solid reading and rereading his books lookin on the internet etc etc. and iv never had the oppertunity to see/hear him. i wish though..
i guess he doesnt come to kansas very often...
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:HonestAbe: how come two of the most anchient civilizations, the egyptians and the chinese, failed to notice this giant flood that covered the world?
In his book "Worlds in Collision," Immanuel Velikovsky states that the written or oral traditions of all major cultures include a story of the great deluge. He relates a particularly interesting deluge story from the Chinese tradition.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I think they're just using me and my deep love for LotR parodies to get what they want. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I really had to force myself to finish the series and didn't enjoy it too much. The only reason I did was probably 'cos I'm the type of person who can't leave anything unfinished - oh and reading is like breathing - just gotta do it! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
) and am in a soppy mood ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
