[Solaar]

The truth is not clear and world is ever changing. But I have such a deep sense of love and respect for the earth, for all living things, that even the tiniest of actions, the swatting of a fly or the tearing of a leaf from a tree, makes me stop and think. I can't help it. Everything is so connected. One small action reverberates everywhere, and though we can never know where and how and to what extent, we can still be aware.

That's the old chaos theory isn't it? Who was the guy that said if a butterfly flapped its wings here there would be a tidal wave on the other side of the world?

Kind of ironic, right now?

Thanks for clearing up the name thing, too.

Solaar
the clarified

[Gary Wassner]

I believe that is true though. All of our actions have consequences. We may never know of them, but that is not so important. Just knowing that they do makes the difference. It necessitates thought and responsiblity.

Two of my children read my books and one never has and probably never will. He's not a reader. One of my kids is my biggest fan. He has been a fantasy fanatic for years now, and he is an incredibly avid reader. He reads my books over and over.

They though are not the reason I began writing fantasy. It just never occurred to me to write anything else when I first began. Epic Fantasy has had such an impact on my life that it was natural for me. I read Tolkein in college and I was never the same again. I was also a philosophy student, so the combination was an interesting one. I went on to get my masters in continental philosophy, and then i taught while I was working on my Phd. I was more interested in speculative fiction though than I was in many of the disciplines of philosophy which I had no choice but to study. Ethics was my strength, but even within that field, my interests were quite limited. I left the doctoral program I was in just short of completing my dissertation, and I never went back to academics.

[Scott Bakker]

I don't know about you, but one aspect of some contemporary social and scientific theorising that really gets me is the one that says human beings are inherently without choice (eg, "hard wire" theories about genetic behaviour, such as men are "hard wired" to rape, or some "hard" behavourial pyschology.) I simply don't believe it, and it makes me suspicious - I think these ideas are all about controlling people, and I wonder how much the popularity of fantasy is to do with a similar reaction. There are actually very few situations (and the only ones I can think of are all extreme) in which choice doesn't exist.

I'm not sure anyone really seriously debates that we have hard-wired tendencies to act in certain ways, which is a far cry from saying we're absolutely determined to act in those ways. Really, is it just a giant cultural coincidence that statistically significant numbers of men in all societies commit rape? Surely not. You could even argue that insisting otherwise is pernicious: denying our weaknesses only makes overcoming them that much more difficult - if not impossible. It makes it more likely we'll succumb.

Personally, I think 'humanism' is an obvious load of hooey. It has all the hallmarks I've grown to be suspicious of: it's self aggrandizing, it's simplistic, and it's tends to be stated with implausible certitude - just like so many other belief-systems we tend to coddle ourselves with.

When you set aside what we want to be, isn't it obvious what we are? Wondrous and murderous by turns - and pretty banal and self-serving the rest of the time. We are a frail and conflicted lot - this I think is the greater engine of literature.

[Gary Wassner]

I think we recognize our darker side all too clearly. That's probably why we need these value systems to believe in. That does not mean that we believe them to be true.
Today it seems that educators and psychologists are so determined to take responsiblity away from the individual. Attention deficit disorders of all kinds abound in our vocabulary now, but they do not excuse behaviour. They may explain it, but even then, what are they really explaining? The actions, it seems to me, stand on their own. The actions one commits and the impact those actions have on those around you are facts. Cause and effect. We shouldn't absolve people of responsibility for them, even though we can explain them sometimes.

I don't believe in altruistic action. I think it's a contradiciton in terms. But I can still behave in ways that benefits others. And I can be kind rather than heartless, regardless if one action may intrinsically be no better than the other. Value is something we impose based upon our education and our sensibilities. Being noble is a concept we as humans have created. Their is no nobility in nature, but there is plenty of cruelty. That does not mean that within our lives and our social situations, we cannot take comfort, even if it's selfish comfort, in behaving according to the values we have imposed.

The test for me is how to remain human in a world that is increasingly crueler and more coldly scientific. Is it purely romanticism on my part that I feel as if I want to do the right thing and that I do sense the difference between good and evil within the context of my life. Within the context of my life....

[Solaar]

I believe that is true though. All of our actions have consequences. We may never know of them, but that is not so important. Just knowing that they do makes the difference. It necessitates thought and responsiblity.


Definitely. We could now go off on one of those 'parallel timelines' theories, where we discuss something we do that we could have done differently, thereby changing one timeline or another infinitely.

Does that make sense?

Two of my children read my books and one never has and probably never will. He's not a reader. One of my kids is my biggest fan. He has been a fantasy fanatic for years now, and he is an incredibly avid reader. He reads my books over and over.

Ah, so you could be the next Tolkien!! :D didn't he write LOTR primarily for one of his offspring? grandson, perhaps?


I was also a philosophy student, so the combination was an interesting one. I went on to get my masters in continental philosophy, and then i taught while I was working on my Phd.

Now this is a little 'paranoid' thing that I have of mine. I never excelled at school. I was a proper drop-out and a bum, but apparently I do/did have the smarts to get somewhere. I always read with envy about how a lot of authors have phd's, etc and always rue my youth and what I may have become.

I wanted to be a lawyer.

Maybe if I'd done all that I'd have the motivation and intelligence to inspire myself??

But I have NO regrets. I have two beautiful children and I'm happy in life... but I do wish I could take my writing seriously.

Solaar
don't feel sorry for me - I'm A-ok!

[Gary Wassner]

Why don't you take your writing seriously? Education can be obtained in many ways. School is by far not the only one.

I regretted that I left the university when I did, and that I did not complete my Phd. At least i regretted it at the time. I certainly don't now. I firmly believe that it's possible to turn whatever situation you are in, into one that is rich and full of promise.

It's so strange to look back sometimes and realize what small things had such enormous influences on your life. When I was a young, young child I felt very alone and very isolated. I loved to read, and i did until the sun came up in the morning. But it also comforted me because I was terribly afraid of the dark.

I read a book once when I was very young, called the Trolley Car Family. It was about this poor family that lost their home and had to move into an old, abandoned trolley car. They converted the seats into beds and built partitions, a flower bed around the rusted old car, they decorated the windows and turned it into a home. I did not grow up in a poor family, but to me, this trolley car was the epitome of comfort and safety - it was a real, loving home.

My beliefs today are no different. So much of what we put our faith in is baseless anyway. I would rather believe that I make a difference, than lament that I don't.

[alison]

Hey Solaar

I have no university education whatsoever, which I have sometimes regretted. (I especially wish that I had continued to study Latin, which I loved - maybe one day.) That doesn't stop people sometimes calling me "academic" (who? me?) when they want to get abusive. I just read books; that's what academics do, after all.

An awful lot of writers are autodidacts. It has its disadvantages, but it also has advantages - a certain freedom, perhaps, to be irresponsible.

[alison]

I'm not sure anyone really seriously debates that we have hard-wired tendencies to act in certain ways, which is a far cry from saying we're absolutely determined to act in those ways. Really, is it just a giant cultural coincidence that statistically significant numbers of men in all societies commit rape? Surely not. You could even argue that insisting otherwise is pernicious: denying our weaknesses only makes overcoming them that much more difficult - if not impossible. It makes it more likely we'll succumb.


Women can rape, as well. I had a friend who was nearly raped by two fourteen year old girls, and he was as thoroughly traumatised as any woman would be. Women can be violent and cruel, they can be iron fist rulers, and they can write symphonies and epic poems. These kind of facts are often elided by this hardwire stuff (I'm talking about the hard core people, who are most often bad science).

Most men _don't_ rape. I once read a long study on the incidence of rape in Australia, the myths that surround male and female sexuality, and what might be done to combat rape rates, written by a bunch of forensic scientists, and basically their answer - to simplify considerably - was that while women are not respected as human beings by men, while misogyny is winked at in broad society and women are treated as second class citizens or as chattels, rape will continue. Only the tiny minority of rapes are pyschotic crimes. It is - among other things - a moral crime; moral men don't rape.

I'm not denying that instinctive behaviours exist, or that genetics don't matter. Of course they do. I've had babies, I know that instinct is strong. I know rape exists in the animal world (most strangely and brutally, among ducks - don't think they're cute). I'm saying that humans are conscious and sentient entities, and this self awareness has huge implications for our behaviour. A very interesting sociologist clled Baumann says that a moral consciousness begins the instant we realise that other people exist, that we are not the entire world, and that human beings are essentially morally aware creatures. That seems accurate to me.

[Gary Wassner]

The ability to contsrain our otherwise animal tendencies is what initiates ethical systems in the first place. Of course we can control ourselves and our instincts - at least most of us can. But the understanding that there is choice, that actions are the results of our choices and that we are not simply beasts who react to stimuli, is that moral consciousness which you mentioned. There may be no ultimate law or definition of good an evil that can transcend human society and human interaction, but so what? Even if we define it in a utilitarian manner, it serves the same function. There is a moral consciousness that we tap into, and though it changes from age to age, it's purpose is most likely to permit the survival of the race. We are like no other creatures, we have a conscience.

[Radthorne]

We are like no other creatures, we have a conscience.
Two sages were sitting by a pond, watching the fish swim. One turned to the other and said, "How happy the fish are today."

The second sage said to the first, "How do you know that? You are not a fish."

The first replied, "How do you know that I don't know, since you are not me?"


A theme taken up in my books. Other creatures may very well have a conscience and morality, but it may simply be so foreign to our own that we cannot recognize it as such.

My little contribution to the discussion!