This is the first time I have ever read Dune. Something that we brought up in class that I would like to expand upon is the idea of breeding to find a savior. Neither the Bene Gesserit nor anyone else in the novel appear to have any problem with the idea of breeding people for a purpose. The Bene Gesserit willingly give themselves to particular men in order to produce offspring that will continue to breed with the ultimate goal of bringing forth "a human with mental powers permitting him to understand and use higher order dimensions" (508). What is strange about this breeding program is that it takes place after the total disctruction of a computer based world repleate with AI. After ridding the world of computers who were controling human life, the Bene Gesserit were attempting to gain that kind of knowledge that the computers could provide through a human being. What is more safe about a human with the abilities of a computer with the most advanced technology? I think the human would be even less predictable and more dangerous than the macheins. Even beyond that, they might end up creating something they did not understand, like Paul. Creating Paul inevitably created the jihad that the Freemen would bring against the known worlds. The Bene Gesserit forgot that human beings have a will of their own and can act out against their leaders and change alliances. Computers, while intelligent, can be limited by what you allow them access to.
I think that the search for a messiah is ok, like the search that the Freemen had for someone like Paul and his mother. However creating a breeding program to force a savior into the world doesnt seem like the proper thing to do, in any religion or practice. In any film or story where someone attempts to make a greater being, that being transforms into a monster. Though I would argue that Paul isnt a monster, he did ruin the plans of the Bene Gesserit. He did become much more powerful than his creators intended. Even Jessica, his own mother who knew the potential of what she was creating when she chose to have a male child, was at times horrified or her son and what he might be able to see with his extended vision.
I think we can pull something from this story and bring its relevance to our lives in 2006. We are reaching the point in which our technology can begin to produce AI. Humans are spending more time on our compuers, becoming more an extension of the internet than independant isolated individuals. Perhaps we should fear what we could create through the massive intelligence found in any one place. Looking back to "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" I think we can see a similar message there. Mike was similar to Paul in his mental capibilities to predict the future. In the end, Mike as a Da-Sein* dies and regresses back to his state as a simple plug - and - chug machien. I think the same (if we forget about the books that come after Dune) could be assumed for Paul. As a created savior, he too might reach the point where he could no longer fucntion in the world and be forced to either loose his mind from overextension or kill himself because the extent of his knowledge would be too painful.
* Da - Sein is a german word that I have taken from Heidegger from "Being in TIme". In a very general sense here it refers to a being whose "being in the world" is significant compared to others beings ( aka other living things or objects) because it asks the ontological question of how it "bes in the world". It questions its own being while others beings dont question why they be. I know this is a bit confusing, but this is the briefest way I know to describe it.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Scarcity and Economics of Survival in "Dune"
Another late post. I really do apologize. I just didn't want to post this time without having read the full book.
The thing that stuck with me most about Dune, admittedly moreso than the religion theme, which often just became a jumble of titles and rites, was the structure of Fremen life and the necessity of utmost conservation of their society's most precious natural resource -- water. The scarcity of water united the Fremen people in nearly every aspect.. culturally, religiously, economically... It should be easy to take this extreme example as a model for behavior in "Terran society". Inasmuch as comptetition for scarce resources motivates, economically speaking, all human action (at a fundamental level), we should be able to apply this function to politics (of course), sociology (not too much of a stretch) and religion (I don't have it quite worked out in my head yet how this works, but I don't doubt that it does).
So to tie this thought in with the week's topic, I'd say a great deal of what inspires Religion and Politics on Arrakis is one factor: the lack of whatever, which shapes and molds Fremen society, necessarily, in order for it to survive.
The thing that stuck with me most about Dune, admittedly moreso than the religion theme, which often just became a jumble of titles and rites, was the structure of Fremen life and the necessity of utmost conservation of their society's most precious natural resource -- water. The scarcity of water united the Fremen people in nearly every aspect.. culturally, religiously, economically... It should be easy to take this extreme example as a model for behavior in "Terran society". Inasmuch as comptetition for scarce resources motivates, economically speaking, all human action (at a fundamental level), we should be able to apply this function to politics (of course), sociology (not too much of a stretch) and religion (I don't have it quite worked out in my head yet how this works, but I don't doubt that it does).
So to tie this thought in with the week's topic, I'd say a great deal of what inspires Religion and Politics on Arrakis is one factor: the lack of whatever, which shapes and molds Fremen society, necessarily, in order for it to survive.
Resources and Relgion as sources of legitimacy and power
I must say that I thought "Dune" to be, by far, the best work we have read so far in this class. And it also helps that one of the lead characters, who happens to possess certain mystical powers, shares my name.
The interplay between religion/belief and politics is constant throughout the novel and is highly relevant to our contemporary society. "When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man (baraka**), nothing can stand in their path" (508). Indeed, the legitimacy instantly ascribed to someone claiming to possess knowledge of the Supreme or to be directed by Godly powers is an amazingly strong force in politics. I made this point in an earlier post about religion, but leaders who claim to channel God or be speaking for God are much harder to effectively discredit in public to the extent that their followers will believe them. Thus, in countries where politics is strongly linked to religion, every political action is also religiously justified. Likewise, any attack against such a nation is also an attack against one's religious beliefs (I am thinking of countries such as Iran and even the US if one buys into the idea that the Bush administration is being shown the way by God (disclaimer: I don't)). Such an affront gives a population a tremendous reason to fight for its very survival should it feel threatened, and this is at the very forefront of "Clash of Civilization" politics (to borrow Huntington's term).
Also, strongly related to this is the idea of who controls scare resources. "He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it," (446) Muad'Dib recites a couple of times throughout the book. I feel that this is strongly related oil in the current global economy. The world is "addicted" to it and thus searches for it in new lands and fights for its control, similiar to the spices on Arrakis. The assertion of the Fremen in ultimately exercising their control and ownership of the spice against the Guild monopoly and the rest of the empire is similiar to the smaller, oil producing countries forming OPEC. Resources diplomacy is very much alive in "Dune" and forces societies to make harsh decisions accordingly. The culture and custom of the Fremen is based upon the scare resource of water the necessarily harsh decisions made as a result. However, for outsiders, the spices are the resource many cannot see past, as they are scare on other planets. It must be explicitly noted, however, that a society which controls something to the point where it can destroy it cannot be dependent on that thing for survival. I assume that the Fremen would be able to continue without the spice, but I don't remember it explicitly saying this.
Ultimately, it is the Muad'Dib's threat to distroy the spice reserves that gains him real power. Thus, his power is effectively a result of his religious powers and fitting the legend (which gives him legitimacy among his people) and of controlling the spice while not being dependent on it for survival (which gives him power among the Empire).
I thought the book amazing. If I had more time, I would keep expounding, but alas, duty calls.
**Baraka is the title of an amazing movie, by the way, which I highly reccomend. It's really much more of an experience than a movie.
The interplay between religion/belief and politics is constant throughout the novel and is highly relevant to our contemporary society. "When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man (baraka**), nothing can stand in their path" (508). Indeed, the legitimacy instantly ascribed to someone claiming to possess knowledge of the Supreme or to be directed by Godly powers is an amazingly strong force in politics. I made this point in an earlier post about religion, but leaders who claim to channel God or be speaking for God are much harder to effectively discredit in public to the extent that their followers will believe them. Thus, in countries where politics is strongly linked to religion, every political action is also religiously justified. Likewise, any attack against such a nation is also an attack against one's religious beliefs (I am thinking of countries such as Iran and even the US if one buys into the idea that the Bush administration is being shown the way by God (disclaimer: I don't)). Such an affront gives a population a tremendous reason to fight for its very survival should it feel threatened, and this is at the very forefront of "Clash of Civilization" politics (to borrow Huntington's term).
Also, strongly related to this is the idea of who controls scare resources. "He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it," (446) Muad'Dib recites a couple of times throughout the book. I feel that this is strongly related oil in the current global economy. The world is "addicted" to it and thus searches for it in new lands and fights for its control, similiar to the spices on Arrakis. The assertion of the Fremen in ultimately exercising their control and ownership of the spice against the Guild monopoly and the rest of the empire is similiar to the smaller, oil producing countries forming OPEC. Resources diplomacy is very much alive in "Dune" and forces societies to make harsh decisions accordingly. The culture and custom of the Fremen is based upon the scare resource of water the necessarily harsh decisions made as a result. However, for outsiders, the spices are the resource many cannot see past, as they are scare on other planets. It must be explicitly noted, however, that a society which controls something to the point where it can destroy it cannot be dependent on that thing for survival. I assume that the Fremen would be able to continue without the spice, but I don't remember it explicitly saying this.
Ultimately, it is the Muad'Dib's threat to distroy the spice reserves that gains him real power. Thus, his power is effectively a result of his religious powers and fitting the legend (which gives him legitimacy among his people) and of controlling the spice while not being dependent on it for survival (which gives him power among the Empire).
I thought the book amazing. If I had more time, I would keep expounding, but alas, duty calls.
**Baraka is the title of an amazing movie, by the way, which I highly reccomend. It's really much more of an experience than a movie.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The religion of Dune
One of the thematical threads running through Dune is the leading role of religion in - well, just about everything. The Bene Gesserit (not officially a religion, but who are we kidding here?) hold positions of power or are married or related to those that do right up to the Emperor Padasha. They control the "genetic line" of most or all of the royal/powerful families. Their legends are spread to every remote corner of the galaxy (even Dune!) to ensure that any Bene Gesserit who will end up there will be able to hold power.
But what most interests me is Orange Catholicism. Whereas the Bene Gesserit are not officially a religion but hold a position in the galaxial consciousness analagous to the Greek or Roman pantheon, Orange Catholicism is officially a religion, yet seems to stand in society more like an ideology or a good writer.
When Yueh gives Paul a copy of the OC Bible, he says it's because he wouldn't mind Paul having a religion. Yet Paul's reaction to the OC Bible isn't conversion or any drastic change in his beliefs; he likes it well enough, sure, but seems to rely on the book more as a book of quotations than anything else. Indeed, this seems to be the common treatment of the book: though it is quoted often in the book, I can't recall anyone ever using its precepts to justify their actions or beliefs. Contrast that to the Bene Gesserit prophencies about Mua'dib, which not only protect Paul and Jessica but thrust them to being figureheads of a jihad!
Perhaps the role of Orange Catholicism is due to its peculiar foundations: it is a religion born by committee. When I first read this in the appendix, my first reaction was to dismiss it: even in seven years, and with the continuing threat of intergalactic violence and chaos, how would it be possible to reconcile such differing religions as existed - just think of how different Buddhism and Hinduism and Christianity and Islam are!
However, I then realized that a similar feat has been performed in recorded history: the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, in which the Emperor Constantine brought representatives of all the different branches of Christianity and decided upon the Trinitarian version as the state religion and the official version of Catholicism. While this was a case of one version triumphing over others... perhaps it is plausible (as much as anything in sci fi!) that all the religions of the world could agree on one version of religion.
So, to sum up what is a rather discombobulated post: what is really the meaning of "religion" in Herbert's book? How do the Bene Gesserit ways and the OC Bible relate to the religions present in today's society - and what does that say about us?
But what most interests me is Orange Catholicism. Whereas the Bene Gesserit are not officially a religion but hold a position in the galaxial consciousness analagous to the Greek or Roman pantheon, Orange Catholicism is officially a religion, yet seems to stand in society more like an ideology or a good writer.
When Yueh gives Paul a copy of the OC Bible, he says it's because he wouldn't mind Paul having a religion. Yet Paul's reaction to the OC Bible isn't conversion or any drastic change in his beliefs; he likes it well enough, sure, but seems to rely on the book more as a book of quotations than anything else. Indeed, this seems to be the common treatment of the book: though it is quoted often in the book, I can't recall anyone ever using its precepts to justify their actions or beliefs. Contrast that to the Bene Gesserit prophencies about Mua'dib, which not only protect Paul and Jessica but thrust them to being figureheads of a jihad!
Perhaps the role of Orange Catholicism is due to its peculiar foundations: it is a religion born by committee. When I first read this in the appendix, my first reaction was to dismiss it: even in seven years, and with the continuing threat of intergalactic violence and chaos, how would it be possible to reconcile such differing religions as existed - just think of how different Buddhism and Hinduism and Christianity and Islam are!
However, I then realized that a similar feat has been performed in recorded history: the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, in which the Emperor Constantine brought representatives of all the different branches of Christianity and decided upon the Trinitarian version as the state religion and the official version of Catholicism. While this was a case of one version triumphing over others... perhaps it is plausible (as much as anything in sci fi!) that all the religions of the world could agree on one version of religion.
So, to sum up what is a rather discombobulated post: what is really the meaning of "religion" in Herbert's book? How do the Bene Gesserit ways and the OC Bible relate to the religions present in today's society - and what does that say about us?
Monday, September 25, 2006
A Messiah too detailed
While this book was amazing (this being the first time I have read it), they style of allowing the reader to know the outcome of the book was a little off putting. Throughout the entirety of the book, we knew Paul would be the one. It was almost guaranteed what would happen to almost every other character we met. We knew the destiny of Leto, his terrible death at the mercy of his dear Dr. Yuet. The Barron had to die at the hands of one of Paul's family members, and the Emperor would be ultimately destroyed by Paul himself. While the story was beautifully constructed, having that foresight did not allow the book to have as great an impact on the reader.
Similarly, knowing beforehand that Paul was the Messiah not only according to Bene Gesterite lore or the Freemen prophecies took away from his accomplishments. Whenever Paul did something amazing or noteworthy I began to think well of course he did that, he is going to be the messiah... he is supposed to do those things. I don't think people normally know ahead of time that people are going to be the Messiah, even with careful inbreeding. In the back of the book, when there is an explanation of the Bene Gesertie goals, the planned birth between the female Paul should have been and the nephew of the Barron had "the high probability of producing Kwisatz Haderach" (509). There should be no predetermined savior. We cannot know what they will do. Therefore, I think our understanding as readers of the writings of the Princess Irulan before those things actually took place diminished Paul's ability to become a Messiah in our eyes.
Similarly, knowing beforehand that Paul was the Messiah not only according to Bene Gesterite lore or the Freemen prophecies took away from his accomplishments. Whenever Paul did something amazing or noteworthy I began to think well of course he did that, he is going to be the messiah... he is supposed to do those things. I don't think people normally know ahead of time that people are going to be the Messiah, even with careful inbreeding. In the back of the book, when there is an explanation of the Bene Gesertie goals, the planned birth between the female Paul should have been and the nephew of the Barron had "the high probability of producing Kwisatz Haderach" (509). There should be no predetermined savior. We cannot know what they will do. Therefore, I think our understanding as readers of the writings of the Princess Irulan before those things actually took place diminished Paul's ability to become a Messiah in our eyes.
A religious reason...
Both Russ and Vanessa brought up how the Protestant religion has shaped the U.S. in contrast to how Islam has shaped the Middle East. Russ especially mentioned religion in contrast to reason.
I think that our country's Protestant heritage has actually had a strong influence on making the U.S. a rational nation. In many ways, Protestantism broke away from Catholicism in order to have a more rational religion: they divested themselves of extensively ornate religious ceremonies, used Bibles written in the vernacular, and preached that each man could speak to God himself, without the aid of a priest.
Through religion has evolved a lot in the past 230 years, and as liberal college students we laugh at the idea that our president might wake up and ask God for guidance every morning, religion is still and inextricable part of our nation. It is threaded through every detail of our laws and government (look at marriage laws for an example - they're based on social tradition, which is based solely in religion), and the Protestant faith in the reason of common man pervades - not just in our democratic voting system or "trial by a jury of your peers", but even in the way presidential candidates spend more time trying to look like a regular guy than on detailing the issues they support.
The ideology of manifest destiny is a perfect example of the intersection of explicitly Protestant beliefs and a "secular" yet Protestant-based reliance on reason. Expansion was (and is) justified both with religion and logic: we expand because God wants us to (or because it's our moral duty to spread our government), but also because it makes sense to occupy space to the West (or consolidate our power in the Middle East).
I think that our country's Protestant heritage has actually had a strong influence on making the U.S. a rational nation. In many ways, Protestantism broke away from Catholicism in order to have a more rational religion: they divested themselves of extensively ornate religious ceremonies, used Bibles written in the vernacular, and preached that each man could speak to God himself, without the aid of a priest.
Through religion has evolved a lot in the past 230 years, and as liberal college students we laugh at the idea that our president might wake up and ask God for guidance every morning, religion is still and inextricable part of our nation. It is threaded through every detail of our laws and government (look at marriage laws for an example - they're based on social tradition, which is based solely in religion), and the Protestant faith in the reason of common man pervades - not just in our democratic voting system or "trial by a jury of your peers", but even in the way presidential candidates spend more time trying to look like a regular guy than on detailing the issues they support.
The ideology of manifest destiny is a perfect example of the intersection of explicitly Protestant beliefs and a "secular" yet Protestant-based reliance on reason. Expansion was (and is) justified both with religion and logic: we expand because God wants us to (or because it's our moral duty to spread our government), but also because it makes sense to occupy space to the West (or consolidate our power in the Middle East).
Religion or reason as foundation of American society?
In response to what Vanessa said, I think it's important to note that there's a big difference between being a country explicitly founded upon the foundation of a certain religion (Islamic Middle Eastern regimes) and a country being subtly and inherently linked to a religion because of its history, because of the ideaologies of its founders, etc...
In the US case, whether or not Americans choose to pride themselves on pure rationalism, it's very important to look to protestantism for a large part of the source of our cultural (and political) heritage. The book (I almost capitalized that and wrote "The Book", which would have been just as appropriate) contains a ton of examples of this. Even at present, debates over the interpretation of the constitution rage -- are we beholding to the ideas of white slaveholders who died hundreds of years ago? Or is the constitution an entity which can grow and change with the people whose rights it's meant to protect? A large body of people prefers the former interpretation.
The point is that, as far as I can tell, protestantism is both the cause and the embodiment of our "manifest destiny". The idea of expansion is linked to a playing out of Revelation, and the "protestant work ethic" itself is in no small way what ties our society together: the importance of productivity, of the mobilization of effort, of labor as an assurance of God's favor.
In the US case, whether or not Americans choose to pride themselves on pure rationalism, it's very important to look to protestantism for a large part of the source of our cultural (and political) heritage. The book (I almost capitalized that and wrote "The Book", which would have been just as appropriate) contains a ton of examples of this. Even at present, debates over the interpretation of the constitution rage -- are we beholding to the ideas of white slaveholders who died hundreds of years ago? Or is the constitution an entity which can grow and change with the people whose rights it's meant to protect? A large body of people prefers the former interpretation.
The point is that, as far as I can tell, protestantism is both the cause and the embodiment of our "manifest destiny". The idea of expansion is linked to a playing out of Revelation, and the "protestant work ethic" itself is in no small way what ties our society together: the importance of productivity, of the mobilization of effort, of labor as an assurance of God's favor.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Continuing on the Religion Theme
How much of religion has been a part of our society seems to be a popular topic this week. The day after out class discussion the same general topic was brought up in my Contemporary Middle East course. The prof. asked about our views on the role of religion in Middle Eastern countries and if we thought it played a more important roll int he shaping of countries there as compared to western countries like the United States. All the students who initially raised their hands suggested that the United States is above religion, that we were made from sterner stuff than religion implied. Meanwhile Middle Eastern countires, as they had such an import on Islam were prone to faith based weakness. I responded with what I had gleaned from our conversation, that the United States is not exempt from faith based bias as we were founded upon christianity.
What I found most interesting about this particular conversation was the American pride of lack of religion in our government. I think this may be a new form of Manifest Destiny. They were proud to say "we are not like those barbarians who use religion to rule their country". They believed it was our destiny to be seperate from God. Even though they were incorrect on the amount of religion that went into the creation of the United States, they followed the same pattern of thinking us the chosen people, the ones who got running a government the right way.
Is it then the case that all people feel a manifest destiny? I dont think it is limited only to the United States. Most people in most areas of the world think their way of living is the correct "god chosen" way. However, when it is that a country begings to pride itself on not being partial to a god? Does it ever really happen? While there are many different belief systems alive in the United States, for the most part they all have a concept of a divine spirit. Those spirits allow people to think of their lives and futures as god driven. I think that most of the world has this sense of godly destiny, and that all people think that their country is the best because a certain god is looking over it. The United States version of this destiny has morphed into a nation of right thinking people instead of a god given people.
What I found most interesting about this particular conversation was the American pride of lack of religion in our government. I think this may be a new form of Manifest Destiny. They were proud to say "we are not like those barbarians who use religion to rule their country". They believed it was our destiny to be seperate from God. Even though they were incorrect on the amount of religion that went into the creation of the United States, they followed the same pattern of thinking us the chosen people, the ones who got running a government the right way.
Is it then the case that all people feel a manifest destiny? I dont think it is limited only to the United States. Most people in most areas of the world think their way of living is the correct "god chosen" way. However, when it is that a country begings to pride itself on not being partial to a god? Does it ever really happen? While there are many different belief systems alive in the United States, for the most part they all have a concept of a divine spirit. Those spirits allow people to think of their lives and futures as god driven. I think that most of the world has this sense of godly destiny, and that all people think that their country is the best because a certain god is looking over it. The United States version of this destiny has morphed into a nation of right thinking people instead of a god given people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
