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.
> There are what, 500 different psycho-active chemicals in cannabis?
I think you're extrapolating from exaggerated factoids. There are only a small number of compounds in cannabis that exist at the intersection of:
- Present in high enough quantities to matter
- Not destroyed during smoking/vaping/processing
- Bioavailable enough to enter the bloodstream
- With the correct chemical structure to penetrate the blood-brain barrier
- Potent enough to elicit effects at the concentrations achieved in human consumption
There are not 500 compounds in cannabis that fit this criteria. The number is much smaller.
If there was some combination that achieved dramatic antidepressant effects where typical cannabis failed, don't you think someone would have noticed by now?
There's no reason to assume that some combination of 500 different variables exists to do something that we haven't observed yet. There are much more fruitful paths to research than endlessly researching every variation of cannabis for the sake of researching cannabis.
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 However corny or disingenuous or outdated it may sound to the modern ear, a king has a supreme duty to both Almighty God and the people alike.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.
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."
I spotted this gem of a comment while scrolling and had to scroll back up to be sure I hadn't misread it. It's both hilarious and pertinent! Well said, "Big Toe."
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.
Politics exist in every organization with more than 3 people and a lot of people, and I am not sure to agree with your point on the lack of integrity.
To go to an extreme, our govs are severely lacking of integrity but aren't falling apart: there is some level of gross that will happen in any sufficiently large group, and properly navigating these situations is a valuable skill that is needed to get any decent progress inside these groups. You won't become a manager/high level clerk/elected official through sheer integrity, and these positions still need to be filled by competent people.
I'm not saying everyone needs to play weird games, just that's it a complex situation with no single guideline.
This is in my opinion, doublespeak to some degree. I used to view it this way. Ultimately our governments reward lack of integrity - the evil king rises to power faster than a good king (perhaps term limits in western democracy play a role here) but ultimately honesty and integrity will, by the nature of their immutable consistency, always eventually triumph given sufficient effort. However - in an environment owned by the dishonest this often wont be realised, particularly if the risks are too high. What we are left with IS a lack of integrity being one key to one success in these scenarios. The question is... is that the life you want to lead? Stalin existed with total control, but ultimately everyone lied to him out of fear. He was successful from a human aquiring resources perspective, but. Is that a world someone wants to live in?
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.
> "And where did computing science get its formal beginnings? In mathematics departments."
Citation needed. You might be able to argue that it had its beginning in EE departments, but CS as a field did not spring from math at all. Seriously there is a difference between formalizing something in mathematical language - which happens to almost every technical field - and having that formalization be considered an advancement in math itself. This is exactly my point about throwing everyone "technical" into the mix. After all, the formalization of chemistry requires lots of math, so Marie Curie must be on the list of mathematicians, too!
Basocally, we can think of momentum in two parts: the momentum of an object orbitting another, and the momentum of the object spinning on an axis.
At the subatomic level, we observe that electrons have some extra angular momentum, beyond what we'd expect from their "orbits". We call that spin, because it's intrinsic, like the spinning of a macroscale object.
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.
reply