plurinshael

Why would you not have to try each and every combination of features known to create a different effect on the outcome?

There are what, 500 different psycho-active chemicals in cannabis? And how many different kinds of neuro-chemicals can our brains create in synapses? And how do we even begin to organize the ways that that information is transmitted to the structure (topology) of the neural systems? And their firing action logic? And the behavior of the whole organism in question?

Seems like like multiple, multi-linear variable spaces composed within each other. None of which are understandable independently of the other. None of which are perfectly mapped or traverscible landscapes. Why wouldn’t you have to try each and every possible configuration of the system in order to understand how it works?

We are not even working with a strong philosophical foundation or definition of consciousness. We must explore every possibility, leave no stone unturned.

He yearns to be an autocrat, dictator, and tyrant, but this yearning nor its fulfillment will ever make him a king. Kingship is a sacred trust, a sacred role of “first servant of the people.” Kingship should never be stripped down to merely its political element — it has always been a religious position also. However corny or disingenuous or outdated it may sound to the modern ear, a king has a supreme duty to both Almighty God and the people alike. Whatever Trump’s political title, he remains a staunch nihilist and roundly anti-Christian figure. He has a bad attitude, he cuts others down, he behaves crudely. He does not gather consensus, he does not study, he does not reflect. He has never put anyone’s needs before his own gross desires. Even if 100% of Americans wanted him king, and even if the Constitution were changed to name him so, he will never be a king. He will never care enough about others, will never be capable of the self-abnegation it takes to be a real leader. He will never have the humility to go before God as a servant. And he certainly will never have the discipline, earnestness, purity, honor, or even simply, the guts, to do God’s work on Earth. He is the worst kind of rich kid, a brat, a scoundrel, a gangster, a thief. There is literally nothing kingly about him.

Your point is well-taken, but the terminology deserves more than Americans and other republican traditions tend to give it.

Very surprised by your comment.

-- Spoilers ahead. --

The Bene Gesserit spent thousands of years selectively breeding humans, and training them extensively in physical and mental practices designed to strengthen their endurance, control, acuity, subtlety of mind, physical prowess, internal consciousness, grasp of social psychology, political acumen, etc etc. People call them witches, because they just seem to know things they shouldn't know, but we as readers constantly get the inside intel, the reminder that, there's no magic at work here, they just pay attention, think critically, and know how to act to shape people's perceptions and motivations toward their own ends.

(I shouldn't say "no magic", I guess. The lines blur with the ritual substances, the visions. But they still typically strike the tone that these things emerge from control and mastery of mind and body, not the supernatural. The breeding program, the whole point of it was to "Shorten the Way", ie shorten the way to the supernatural.)

Paul comes from this deep heritage and training on his mother's side, with all the genetic favors that come with that, and all the environmental factors of a fully trained Bene Gesserit mother who spends a great deal of her time training, teaching, and raising her son. In the context of the two of them living in a noble great house as the Duke's beloved mistress and the Duke's beloved son and heir.

Now when we consider the father's side, the heritage and station of the House Atreides, and also the station of Paul, heir to the ducal fief. House Atreides, not merely a family with some money, but a real duchy, a "country" comprising entire planets, with a top-notch military organization, extensive business interests in every industry of society, and all the talent that attracts to well-run organizations that treat their people right / do the right thing / live with virtue and honor. Now whether that's Atreides PR or a fair description, they definitely hold this reputation, and hold earnest and deep-felt allegiance from several truly fine thinkers and warriors. Gurney Halleck, the bard-warrior, with an unlimited memory for quipping poetry and song and scripture, but a fierce talent for war. Thufir Hawat, the trained Mentat, human ultra-computer, loyal to the Atreides for generations. Duncan Idaho, Swordmaster of Ginaz.

Now we can see Paul surrounded by the finest men and the finest woman (Jessica) in the Known Universe, all of them training him from infancy to grow ever stronger, ever finer, ever subtler in his thinking, ever more designing and powerful. Bene Gesserit training and Mentat training, simultaneously. I don't mean that the book mentions them doing these things, I mean the book spends a great of time actually developing these things for Paul (and the reader), asking deep and philosophical and practical questions about the nature of power, the nature of life, the tragedy and danger of the galaxy, the weirding possibilities for those who can perceive correctly, can design a new system of action correctly and expeditiously. Lay plans within plans within plans.

So I understand if you think this all represents a bit too much, a bit overpowered of a character, not an unreasonable reaction I guess. But to say the book doesn't motivate any reason to believe Paul as a character, I just don't understand. Especially because to your point, he does not triumph!

I think you might not have understood the ending... Paul rides his abilities and powers to activate and lead the Fremen, by which I mean, activate the completely manipulative psychological scheme implanted by the Bene Gesserit generations ago. Paul proceeds to win the Fremen to him personally, win the planet back from the Harkonnens, and win the Imperial game of simultaneously thwarting the Emperor's intention, then holding the Spacing Guild at his mercy, then proceeding to marry the Emperor's daughter and secure his political primacy among the Landsraad, the Guild, and the Bene Gesserit. And then what happens? The Fremen proceed to go on a jihad across the entire galaxy, killing hundreds of billions.

The protagonist does not triumph. The book ends at the height of his triumph, but with the haunting knowledge of the fire of jihad that will now proceed to burn across the Universe.

--

I'm not sure "shallow" describes Dune accurately. I want to say something like, perhaps it contains shallow characters, or apparently shallow characters, who exist in a (spiritually) shallow Realpolitikal game in a dangerous class society. As people, they spent a great time of their time and energy analyzing the intentions and motivations of others, but also we see how, they pretty much need to exist in that state of paranoia and counter-scheming, or wake up dead.

But the book itself feels quite deep to me, as it unfolds and provokes new thought, new perspective. "The tangential slash of her question shocked his mind into a higher awareness: sand through a screen."

Lighten up, Francis.

Seems like you're describing a lack of integrity. I think it important that we remember, people / institutions / things that lack integrity tend to fall apart.

You seem to take away that the author leaves us with judgement. It seemed to me the author ended on a sad note.

Thanks for expanding and clarifying your comments. I too find much of the U.S. court system troubling; more to the point, the common law itself. The standard catch-phrase in the United States (about government in general and the judiciary in part) is "checks and balances", but those checks and balances often seem quite primitive (most having been designed 100+ years prior to mathematical formalism / rigor). We need checks and balances to be sure, but we also need homeostasis and self-repair; we need a rigorous system of axioms upon which to base logical reasoning; we need a solid philosophical grounding. The very fact that a legal rift exists between so-called Originalism and so-called Living Constitution theory tells me the entire system lacks a formal (rigorous) basis.

Given that the American judiciary grew out of the English colonial judiciary, which in practice looked more towards the whims and largesses of the aristocracy than any principled grounding in (legal, philosophical, or mathematical) form and structure, it does not wholly surprise me.

We do better now than the English colonial judges did, but we can do better still.

Did computer science as a field exist in Lady Ada's time? No, it did not. And where did computing science get its formal beginnings? In mathematics departments.

I guess I just have an inclusionist mindset with these matters. Popularizers, esotericists, eccentrics, early pioneers of new thought-tech, and people in closely associated fields should at least be considered in projects like this. Contributing to mathematics culture seems important to me, not just contributing to mathematics achievements.

Yes, this was probably an excellent time to put forth this proposition.

Spin aka intrinsic angular momentum

Hey have a nice day

My educational background is in mathematics and physics. I think you'll find I can give disciplined, logical thinking a run for your money. Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.

Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion on the great sea of life that happens outside formal systems. Should I spend my time by the river or walking among the trees? There's no strictly logical general answer. You can say, "It's thunderstorming, you shouldn't be outside at all," but that presupposes that I care about surviving. If I do not share that axiom ie I want to live as the wild, and brave the storm with my body in danger, that's not strictly speaking illogical. It's just not your logic. The logic does not share the same axioms but may be perfectly consistent unto itself.

I like the idea of requiring a response in order to downvote.

>I doubt they are actually convening with the divine.

I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?

Note what I did and didn't say. I did NOT say: "People with psychiatric disorders will be cured by spiritual experiences."

Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.

I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.

It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.