Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Moorcock & Religion ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If planet formation began 100 million years ago, there should be a Starbucks opening there any time now.
    _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
    _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
    _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
    _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

    Comment


    • No, that will be not happen for at least another 4,900Million years if I read my creation calendar correctly..

      Comment


      • In the old days you could build a planet in 6 days. Not any more.

        Bloody health & safety regulations.
        _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
        _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
        _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
        _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Mosley View Post
          In the old days you could build a planet in 6 days. Not any more.

          Bloody health & safety regulations.
          ROFL!
          Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

          Comment


          • "Do Gods create men, or do men create gods?"

            I'm not sure I got it ad verbatim, but in essence it's a question often asked throughout the Eternal Champinon sequence. Of course, the answer may well be "both" rather than either. It seems rather obvious that there's something "larger" than man when you take mankind's thinking as a whole -- that is, if you add up all individual people's (soul's) thinking, they make up something larger than the sum of the individual parts. That's startlingly unscientific (or un-mathematical). This "larger-than-mankind" thinking of mankind is what we term "spiritual". There's something going on here -- the proverbial "more between heaven and Earth" -- but it's very hard to nail down. Of course, moralists will always claim it for their own, just as Bush claims to be made president by God-Almighty, but that kind of self-serving attitude can't be taken seriously. The trouble with moralism is that it's serving earthly purposes. Various religious traditions have tried to rid themselves of that, just to end up being dragged down in a swamp deadlier than the one they tried to avoid (the Amish, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists etc etc etc). The "Larger" thing seems to be (a feminine) one of love and nourishment, in the end, rather than the (masculine) prohibition and punishment monomania that tends to dominate institutionalized religion.
            "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

            Comment


            • Depends on the paradigm, I suppose.

              When I was working in the jungles of Papua New Guinea, it was like stepping into the Mage: the Ascension role-playing game. Group consenss defined reality. If the whole village decided you cheated on your wife, then you did, regardless of whether or not you remembered doing it. You would go and apologize to your wife for cheating on her. Because the village had spoken, and the majority created the truth.

              Traditional western thought is that the majority is not always right. Insert Hitler's election illustration here. Point being... If there is an omnipotent eternal being colloqually called God, does He care if we all decide He is a figment of our imagination?

              If man creates God, then the culture of PNG is closer to the way truth and fact work than traditional western thought.

              Mind you, if the majority create truth, them Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.

              I think the idea that men create the gods is great in Saberhagen's fiction, but may not hold water in the real world. Too many implications on other facets of reality and truth. At least, that's my 2 cents, which is 2 pennies more than what you paid for.
              Last edited by J-Sun; 05-26-2008, 11:45 AM.
              "Self-discipline and self-knowledge are the key. An individual becomes a unique universe, able to move at will through all the scales of the multiverse - potentially able to control the immediate reality of every scale, every encountered environment."
              --Contessa Rose von Bek, Blood part 4, chapter 12

              Comment


              • To play the skeptic for a moment, (which I seem to be doing a lot recently) Just because something is obvious, does not mean it is true.

                Random example: 13 year old boy starts to massively increase his intake of food, especialy meat.. and then starts to put on height and weight (especialy musle and bone mass), it is obivious from one standpoint that the food caused the growth. However, examination of a diferent sort would show that a change in the endocrine system triggered 2 things, growth and increased appitite, the appitite may have helped fuel the growth but it did not "cause" it, as obvious as it may have been.

                Human minds are patern recognizing machines, and we are so good at it that we make a lot of false positives. Think of clouds. are there objects represented there? no, but we see them because our brain is so good at recognising paterns (especialy human faces, the amount of "wetware" devoted to that is phenominal, it is no wonder people see faces in taco shells, 1/3 of their brain is constantly on the look out for faces.)

                Comment


                • Nat, really on the pattern recognition? I wrote that book by Gibson off. But, maybe I missed something.
                  Kevin McCabe
                  The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                  Comment


                  • Try an experiment
                    draw two horizontal lines on a peice of paper about an inch long, with a gap of 1/2 an inch between them. Underneath draw an arch "open" downwards, like a "(" rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

                    now ask someone else what emotion the paper is feeling

                    point being, that is a VERY poor representation of a face (extreem minimalism if you will) but our brains instantly lock on to what is available and interpret is as "facelike"

                    btw, Mike, unfortunately your walpaper is the one exception... that actually is Stalin, but don't fret, the ghost of Trotsky will protect you

                    Kevin, I haven't read the recent Gibson books (last one I caught was "All Tomorrows Parties") Is it worth the price of admission?

                    Comment


                    • Pattern Recognition has been out in paperback for a while, so yes. The new one is still in hardback, I think. I'm happy to send it to you (the hardback). I already gave/lent my copy of PR a few years back.
                      Kevin McCabe
                      The future is there, looking back at us. Trying to make sense of the fiction we will have become. William Gibson

                      Comment


                      • I wonder if that is why I see faces in the walls when I take hallucinogens?
                        "The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is. If we stop telling ourselves that the world is so-and-so, the world will stop being so-and-so." - don Juan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
                          Random example: 13 year old boy starts to massively increase his intake of food, especialy meat.. and then starts to put on height and weight (especialy musle and bone mass), it is obivious from one standpoint that the food caused the growth. However, examination of a diferent sort would show that a change in the endocrine system triggered 2 things, growth and increased appitite, the appitite may have helped fuel the growth but it did not "cause" it, as obvious as it may have been.
                          "Cause" is a tricky game to play: In the example, both the increase in mass and food are symptomatic of the endocrine system change, but the increase in food is a dependency of the increase in mass: they are not isolated. The increase in mass would not have occurred without the increase in food. As for 'cause', then what caused the endocrine system change? Puberty? What caused that? And so on.

                          The snag with 'cause' is that it tends to:
                          (a) put 'purpose' onto things that may not have such a thing
                          (b) assume a singluarity of cause,
                          (c) ignores dependencies (as distinct from causualities), both positive and negative.

                          The food above is a good example of a 'positive' dependency. A mad example of a negative dependency would be he got big and ate more food because he didn't get hit by a truck: a silly example, true, but in more controlled environments, negative dependancies become a useful principle.

                          I assuming Nathaniel suffers none of the above, as he seems well versed in logical deconstruction of causality, likely better then me in all honesty, but I thought I'd chuck it in for the record as it were. Seperating out causuality and dependency (even just defining them) can be a tricky buisness!
                          Last edited by Rothgo; 05-27-2008, 12:16 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rothgo View Post
                            The snag with 'cause' is that it tends to:
                            (a) put 'purpose' onto things that may not have such a thing
                            (b) assume a singluarity of cause,
                            (c) ignores dependencies (as distinct from causualities), both positive and negative.
                            I tend to see that as 'pattern recognition', or maybe a slightly mutated relative, 'pattern creation'. Sadly, the one that causes is harm is 'pattern creation' subsequently interpreted as facts, rules, and worst of all 'right'.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jagged View Post
                              "Do Gods create men, or do men create gods?"

                              I'm not sure I got it ad verbatim, but in essence it's a question often asked throughout the Eternal Champinon sequence. Of course, the answer may well be "both" rather than either.
                              Interesting observation Jagged. I'd run with 'both' - that man creates plenty of gods, but not all of them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X