On 7 Mar, 23:23, "Tony" <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> T: =A0Yes, but if you say that the Kwisatz Haderach "symbolized" a
messiah=
,
> that could mean that the novel Dune constituted a kind of allegory for
rea=
l
> historical events. =A0In other words, FH might have meant for Paul to be
a=
> kind of Christ figure, or perhaps someone "who will usher in the
messianic=
> age of war before peace to the world," as in the orthodox Jewish belief.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
Not really. If you take something like symbol that does not mean that
you had to copy the whole history as well. Symbol for high amperage is
stylized lightning but that does not mean that you have to declare
every single person working with the electricity as B. Franklin just
because B.F. tried to catch a lighting.
In my opinion Paul should represent this silly difference between
reality (him being just human) and how religious people saw him as
deity. It's more to illustrate how blind people can be. And not to
draw any historical references.
In fact, if there would be any reference with the historic religious
cultures, I would take an Islam as the main model, since Fremens are
modeled on Islam, therefore Paul can not be Christ, it's more likely
that he's representation of Mohammed.
>
> T: =A0I don't think "chosen one" can mean chosen by the author of the
stor=
y to
> perform tasks to advance the plot (if that's what you mean). =A0If Paul
wa=
s
Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Dune is just a story written by a
human. Just story. All symbolism used is consequence of F. Herbert
interpretation and his point of view. Nothing else. The only thing we
can discus is what he was thinking, or what we are thinking after
reading the story.
> the "chosen one," I think it's fair to ask, Chosen by whom or what?
=A0He
> wasn't chosen by the Bene Gesserit. =A0He was chosen by the Freman, but
th=
e
> Freman believed he was chosen by God. =A0Consequently, I don't believe
Pau=
l
> was a true "chosen one" unless one claims he was chosen by the Higher
Orde=
r
> Plan as discussed in the Appendix.
For Fremens he was. True "chosen one" and that was necessary for the
story. Of course, BG did not choose him. F.Herbert, also got a bit
mystical about that putting this "Higher Order Plan" and also
explaining it as some weird way of future influencing the past. The
catch is that if you let any kind of gods into a story you'll have a
fantasy story not a SF story. And Dune is still officially categorized
as SF. It's quite sly how F.H. left that part not explained in detail.
So you can start wonder are "gods" have more role in the story or they
are just there as an interpretation of todays religion influences .
Exactly as you can wonder does any God has influence in our life or
that's all just consequence of our believes and psychology.
>
> T: =A0That's fine of course, and that's your preference. =A0However,
Paul =
could
> still be a religious king, but not subscribe to Jewish traditions.
=A0For
> example, wasn't Islam's Muhammad a kind of religious king?
No. Mohammed was prophet. The last true one. That's official religious
interpretation. From historical point of view, he was someone who
unified Arabic tribes and with that increased their strength enough
that they started to be im****tant for the history. So if you really
wish to compare Paul with some religious figure, than Mohammed would
be correct pick. Not Jesus.
>
> D: =A0The complete =A0story is a comment on todays people, and on
> situation which was existing in 20th century earth as FH saw it.
>
> T: =A0Fair enough, but if so, what specific situations was FH commenting
o=
n?
> Did Paul represent a type of Kennedy figure? =A0Or was he instead a type
o=
f
> Lawrence of Arabia? =A0Did he represent Stalin or Hitler?
Why you're so obsessed with history details?
In my opinion FH was commenting on the situation with the oil. Spice
is symbol for an oil. Fremens =3D Arabs.
But that does not mean that FH had to pick Kennedy, Lawrence, Stalin
or Hitler as role-model for Paul. That would be too constraining. Even
I would not do so, nor I would read story with those characters.
Those people are now degraded into stereotypes. They lost human
dimension. You can not use them as role-model for the complex story.
The ideas they represent in our minds now are too simple, so you can
use them only in very simple stories.
Although I did said that one could pick Mohammed as role-model for
Paul, even that is not true. I do not believe that FH did that either.
Even that is constraining for the kind of story FH wrote.
> those little silly things every one of us went through the childhood.
> many of those memories are suppressed because they were too painful.
> It is indeed very hard trying to imagine how would everyday life
> looked like if you were able to access not only every single of your
> own memories, but also memories of many of your ancestors.
>
> T: =A0I imagine you would have to be very strong mentally to remember
all =
your
> painful memories. =A0However, I think that most people can do this
> intermittently. =A0In other words, people have access to all their
memorie=
s,
> but not all their memories simultaneously. =A0It would be difficult to
ret=
ain
> multiple lifetimes of memories.
Talk with a psychologist from your surroundings. Your past experiences
do model you the way you are now. And suppression is typical for at
least 75% of the human population. It's normal. Memories are
suppressed or distorted to fit certain emotional need.
If you remove the suppression you significantly changing the
personality of the individual.
About difficulty to retain memories, well for us as we are today, it's
impossible. But FH made it possible in his story. He explained with
intense training. He even showed what happens when you awoken those
memories with out a training. (Scene when Jessica changing the water
of life). That fits human nature as it is today. You would need
intense training to be able to retain all evidences of past events as
they really happened in your own past.
>
> D: =A0Just that would make completely different person. On top of that
FH =
gave
> him
> possibility to see the future.
>
> T: =A0Yes, but I think that Paul's greatest ability, was the ability to
se=
e
> the Now. =A0This was noted in the novel.
Nah. That was just what Paul himself was saying. If you take that as
greatest and significant ability than every accomplished Buddhistic
monk is Kwizac Haderach. Remember, the book was written and first
published during the "Flower-power period", there has to be some
"rubbing off".
>
> D: =A0All of that sounds scary and impossible to imagine, really
imagine.
> That's why Paul seems so extraordinary. And he is, from our point of
> view. But you see, Paul was surrounded with other creatures, his
> mother, his sister, whole Bene Gesserit, later his children and
> Ghanima offspring's, who had similar characteristics. He was not
> extraordinary, he was just a bit better than the rest. FH contributed
> all that to the special DNA characteristic which came to blossom in
> Leto III.
>
> T: =A0Yes, I know what you mean, but even though Paul's first son died,
hi=
s
> second sone was called Leto II.
I know, but God emperor was the third Leto in the story!
>
> D: =A0When you go along that story, then until death of Leto III
> you had that 'special' DNA spread trough the human race. Mostly
> dormant, as even now most of our genes are dormant, but existing.
>
> T: =A0I not sure why you say the DNA was dormant. =A0As I recall, the
Mark=
of
> Siona was active in all of Siona's descendents.
Mark of Siona was not the gene I was referring too. I was talking
about the genes which make possible for majority of people to achieve
the things Paul did, not mark of Siona. Mark of siona was something
which started to spread trough human species after God emperor died.
This is in the field of microbiology. We all have a genes, the most
simple example is genes which makes you resist certain kind of
parasite. You got that gene because your ancestors were resistant on
that parasite and they survived to breed. But that parasite is not
existing in your nice clean 21'th century environment. The gene is
dormant. If you get exposed to the parasite your gene will flare up
and activate releasing appropriate instruction for antibodies. (if you
still have a gene)
So analogy would be that near the end of the God Emperor life, the
genes which made Paul special were now spread trough the human
species. Not mark of Siona. That happened later, I do assume that you
read the books, so there is no point to say when.
> T: =A0I'd agree that Paul did not have magic powers. =A0However, Jessica
> demonstrated psychokinesis when she changed the water of life. =A0And
Paul=
was
Yep, I told you, "the Flower-power" It has to rub off. Also
psychokinesis, telepathy and similar things are somehow accepted in SF
world as something which might happened due to "natural evolution" of
the species. Although there is no scientific prove for those abilities
today, there is also no prove against, so the matter is still open.
Therefore those abilities are not considered to be a magical.
> unique, and represented a significant evolutionary advance for the human
> species. =A0One way to think about evolution, is to define it as man's
jou=
rney
> to a more god-like state of existence. =A0This is a science fiction
idea, =
but,
Why? What's the point of god-like state of existence? Evolution is
adaptation to a environment, nothing more. Breeding is something which
is used to achieve certain goals, like remove tendency to floppy ears
in certain dog breed. Paul was product of breeding, not evolution.
> of course, Dune is a science fiction novel. =A0It seems relevant here to
n=
ote
> that many people believed that Frank Herbert was attempting to start a
> religion. =A0He denied this. =A0In the end, it was the science fiction
aut=
hor L.
> Ron Hubbard who actually started a religion. =A0Frank Herbert simply
wrote=
a
> story that people would enjoy, think about, and talk about.
Well, honestly, Dune is much more complex and interesting story than
"The battlefield Earth". And look at your own posting. You're etching
towards attributing religious meaning to a story all the time. And
you're not the only one. It is no wonder than people thought FH trying
to start religion. People still find religion in his books.
Hubbard's work on the other hand is simple and to me fall into
category of the "air****t reading" (i.e. when you're bored to death by
plane delays and security checks that you'll read anything). No wander
he started religion. He needed someone to take him seriously. ;-)
|
