What is the Gap Series about?

[ItisWritten]

I guess I know a lot less about philosophy than I thought. I think Steve Martin said it best, "I learned just enough philosophy to screw me up for the rest of my life."

I read for pure entertainment (knowing that SRD is a bit more strenuous than most escapism), too. When I want to consider deeper aspects I come here. Maybe not this deep. Anybody got a light?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Note my new sig. If SRD made exactly the same point, is he thus portraying himself as a witch?

And "redemption" is a religious concept. That is no mere comparison, that is using religion as a direct source of inspiration. It is easy to see that SRD has also borrowed much from Eastern mysticism.

Yes, I noticed the new sig.

How can "redemption" be a religious concept for Donaldson when he said:

. . . I don't think of them as "anti-heroes." Yes, I know they're "dark," and yes, it is often unpleasant (!) to spend so much time with them. But I think of them as important people who *need* to have these stories happen to them. I am, in a manner of speaking, helping them find redemption (or personal integrity, or love, or the ability to care about something other than themselves, or whatever you choose to call it).

Atheists can have personal integrity. Atheists can love. Atheists can care about something other than themselves. Atheists can find redemption. There is nothing inherently religious about this concept, and Donaldson explicitly defines it in terms which transcend religion.

Perhaps SRD is trying to prove that there can be a secular side to redemption. But that doesn't contradict my contention that his primary inspiration for it was religious. And calling it other things, such as 'personal integrity,' only tells me that he doesn't want to ram his own concepts down our throats. He's really very easygoing. However, none of those things he mentioned are actually synonymous with the concept of 'redemption.'

No, I wouldn't call Donaldson a witch (or anyone else). I think he uses the word "spiritual" much like he uses the word "redemption." I think the "spiritual" journey you reference in your sig is indeed the journey to redemption I've mentioned in the above quote. And since he describes it in terms which don't require a literal spirit, I think it's fair to claim he uses this word in a figurative sense.

That should be obvious to even the casual SRD reader.

But you also make a fair point that he has borrowed from religious inspiration, though I feel it misses a larger point if one doesn't view that in its proper context, that his aims transcend religion, to something far more universal and human.

I'm not denying SRD's Humanist viewpoint, in fact I believe I was the first to mention it here.

I don't know of any other viewpoint that avoids functionalism, except epiphenomenalism. And the problem with that theory is that it cannot be explained scientifically, so it is only assumed axiomatically.

In SHADOWS OF THE MIND, Roger Penrose developed an interesting middle ground theory which rejected both functionalism and mysticism, but yet still insisted that mind is produced by the brain, and can eventually be explained by science. However, a new science will be necessary to explain it (perhaps a new physics), because mind is a phenomenon which can't be captured with axiomatic or algorithmic explanations. His main source of evidence for mind transcending current science (or functionalism explanations) is that humans can understand Godel's Theorem, which no algorithmic system could achieve.

I find the middle ground between science and faith in philosophy.

Then perhaps we have more in common than either of us has realized.

Not really, since I appeal to philosophy and Penrose is about faith in science. Whether or not consciousness can be emulated artificially is unknown, since it is possible in the long run to at least artificially generate the illusion of consciousness.

They are forever promising new developments and even new sciences which will eventually explain consciousness. Ten years ago, someone predicted that the final explanation would occur in ten years. Ten years before that, someone else promised the same ending.

I don't resist the word "psychology." You are employing such terms favoring reductionism, which in this case is to reduce the concept of spirit (however it is defined) in terms which psychologists are familiar and comfortable with because the abyss is what they fear.

Honestly, I didn't expect you to be so rigorous in your objection to "psychological."

I am very rigorous, and am constantly surprised when people aren't rigorous back at me.

I admit that I used this term in a sloppy manner, and intended to mean something closer to "human" in order to talk about character development instead of plot mechanics. I am not a reductionist. In purely philosophical terms, I'm a neutral monist.

Thanks, I had to go look up that term. It doesn't explain much, it only hypothesizes that there is something "neutral" out there to explain both mind and matter.

You're assuming that matter has become aware of itself, but that's beside the point. I thought I would just point out the materialistic basis of your assumption.

Aren't you made of matter? Aren't you aware of yourself? It's not an assumption that matter has become aware of itself. It's evident in each of us. But that's different from being a materialist. I do not think mental properties are material. Qualia, subjectivity, and intentionality aren't material entities, nor can they be described in terms appropriate for the description of matter. So while this might seem to lead to dualism (and the contradictory problems that entails), I think a "middle ground" approach is closer to the truth (hence my neutral monism stance). I think we still misunderstand both matter and mind.

You say that self-awareness is self-evident and not an assumption, and I agree with that. But the assumption I referred to is prior to that, it is the premise that everything is made up of matter, and since there is only matter, then some of this matter became self-aware. Even if you don't agree with that, it is implied in those two questions in your response above. And so no matter what you say about qualia, the problem of consciousness nevertheless boils down to matter which has somehow become self-aware.

And then of course there is still the problem of matter possessing free-will in a universe where matter is ruled by determinism. But not everything is ruled by deterministic laws. Why does some matter get a bye?

As for the new science Penrose suggested which would explain all this: Such a science already exists; it is called "philosophy."

When you say "Character development" you are often emphasizing the word "Character" while I am emphasizing the word "development." But I only do it to make a point: that development is not possible without projecting a goal toward which one's character is to develop. And this is not possible on empirical grounds. Science cannot explain the growth of a single blade of grass, much less the growth of human character.

I never invoked science to explain character development--but this does certainly explain your resistance to my terms, if you thought I meant a realm of human activity studied by and "explained" psychologists.

I do think I stressed development.

You mentioned development. But even if you have relinquished the psychology angle, you have retained the science angle a la Penrose. Believing that matter has become self-aware, your neutral middle ground between mind and matter still reduces everything mental to matter. but there is no empirical angle on explaining how matter develops self-awareness. I happen to side with a neutral middle that already exists: transcendental idealism, and so I have accepted a theory that already exists, and so I don't have to be content with just sitting on my intellectual thumbs waiting for Penrose's promise of a new science to someday, somehow, come true.

I have an obvious issue with scientists who try to be philosophers.

I remember reading the Nathan R Eddy comments. The Kamelda comments led to responses which were more revealing. . . .
SRD is a polemicist, of course. Aren't we all?

Well, there's a difference between becoming a polemicist after the fact in response to reader questions, and setting out to be a polemicist from the beginning. I honestly believe he doesn't write stories as an act of polemics.

This is the GI question I was talking about:

Mr. Donaldson,

You have insisted repeatedly that you are not a polemicist; instead, you write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites you in some way. But this strikes me as misleading, because what excites you is necessarily entangled with deeper issues like French existentialism (as you’ve mentioned above). So I’m guessing that what passes for “exciting” to Mr. Donaldson goes a lot deeper than what most people would describe as an exciting story. And from reading others like me in this forum, I assume lots of us are reading your work for this very reason, for that underlying depth which gives your characters their meaning, their relevance, and their emotional power. What makes your characters “real” is that their journeys touch upon "what it means to be human”—another description you’ve given for your writing.

But isn’t this exactly what existentialism is? An account of our being-in-the-world? A description of “the human condition”? Life, death, freewill, our roles as our own lawgiver/enforcer/judge (as Nietzsche might say). If “what it means to be human” is that deeper level upon which your stories are grounded, then perhaps you would consider “existential metaphor,” if not “allegory” as a description of what you do? Or "existential fantasy?"

I’m not really trying to find a label for you. I just feel that in an effort to resist that particular label (polemicist), you misleadingly diminish the part of your work that so many of us find unique and epiphanic.

So I suppose my question is: do you REALLY think that your creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story, or is this just a simplified version you offer to stave off more confusion and misplaced assumptions?

If (as you’ve said here) there are conscious and subconscious parts to our freewill, then this deeper level of significance, which leaks into your stories, is just as much your choice as your stated reasons for writing them. Your passion is obviously under your control. I’m confused why you distance yourself from what it “inadvertently” produces in your writing.



<sigh> This is all so much more complicated than I ever wanted it to be. You make a number of perfectly valid points. And yet there are some insidiously misleading assumptions at work, many of which I've inadvertently fostered.

In this interview and elsewhere, I've made a number of statements about my work which (apparently) justify your observations. But there are a couple of critical points here which tend to get lost in the discussion (I mean lost by me as well as by other people). 1) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in retrospect; looking back on the work after it was done. In other words, it was made from my perspective as a reader, not from my perspective as the writer. 2) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in response to a question. In other words, it was elicited from a perspective external to my own. Oh, and there may be a third critical point here as well: most of the statements I've made that bear on the "content" of my work were/are intended to apply to art/literature/fantasy in general rather than to my work in particular.

In this context, yes, I really do think that my creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story. And yes, OF COURSE, who I am as a person profoundly affects what I find exciting. And in addition, my training as a student of literature affects both what I find exciting and how I talk about that excitement. Nevertheless I must insist: I DO NOT HAVE A MESSAGE. Certainly not in the sense that "allegory" implies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, teach you anything, demonstrate anything, or advocate for anything.

My *message,* if I have one, is simply that good stories are worth reading. Why? Because, in my experience, they expand us. How? By engaging us in extremely specific individuals experiencing extremely specific dilemmas which we would not have encountered otherwise, but which (precisely because they are not us) can increase the range of what we're able to understand and (perhaps) empathize with. Polemics, by definition, is about generalization. Story-telling, by definition, is entirely consumed in specifics.

So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism." But that is not at all the same thing as saying that my stories are *about* existential humanism. My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas.

The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them have the potential to be very educational: they can continue the process of expansion. But they also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience.

Apparently I've made that mistake more often than I realized.

(03/18/2005)

I think we both made the same mistake here in assuming an entire linguistic history behind the terms we both chose: psychological vs spiritual. You thought I meant something materialistic, reductionist, and scientific. I thought you meant something dualistic, mystical, or supernatural. While I'm still not clear on what exactly you mean by "spiritual," I do realize I underestimated you. And, I hope I've made my own meaning clearer.

I recall now coming back to that response at least twice in the GI.

I don't necessarily have to believe SRD's response in its entirety. It's not that he's lying, but he is talking around the truth. And the truth is exactly as he stated it in his fantasy essay, by his own admission. Certainly his stories are designed to entertain, to captivate an audience - although he says that he wrote the first Chrons without any expectations that the series would go beyond a few readers in his immediate family. But he also wrote them with an agenda already set in place. And that agenda is to raise the literary bar in the field of fantasy fiction.

Is this polemics? You quoted SRD stating that polemics deals with generalizations, while stories deal with specifics. But his stories also deal with generalizations such as redemption and a whole host of other ideas. So already he is talking through his hat. But the use of such concepts is not polemics, not at this level of generalization.

So going beyond that level of generalization we find the higher, hidden agenda. And if this is considered the most general level from which to discuss his novels, then yes, he was being polemical through the example of how it is possible to write proper fantasy as literature in an effort to shut down once and for all the harangue from critics claiming that fantasy writing is nothing more than fluff or junk. The first Chrons are an exercise in polemical speech without being explicit about it, like for example a sculpture that was created as "serious art" but also exists to shock people out of their complacency, to start a controversy or at least get them talking and debating. That is why modern polemics exists. A polemicist wants to call attention to an agenda in an area that he believes needs to be changed. After reading all of SRD's complaints about the critics and their views on the fantasy genre, and finding out that his complaints go back decades, there is ample evidence for me to believe that with the writing of the first Chrons SRD was being a polemicist attempting to call attention to his avantgarde fantasy writing as well as being a highly entertaining novelist.

[Zarathustra]

Perhaps SRD is trying to prove that there can be a secular side to redemption. But that doesn't contradict my contention that his primary inspiration for it was religious.

Perhaps his inspiration for “secular redemption” was religious. But that’s like saying Nietzsche’s “inspiration” for Zarathustra was Jesus. In “Thus Spoke . . .” Nietzsche was trying to present a “secular version" of Christian ethics, turning those ethics on their head in the process, in which every Christian virtue was a vice, and every vice a virtue. So “inspiration” doesn’t always lead to “imitation.” Sometimes it leads to “refutation.” And in that sense, it is no longer accurate to say the author was inspired as much as he was repulsed or at least motivated to replace it.

And calling it other things, such as 'personal integrity,' only tells me that he doesn't want to ram his own concepts down our throats. He's really very easygoing.

If you acknowledge that he is trying to show a secular side to redemtion, then isn’t he saying exactly what he means? What do you propose he is holding back so that he doesn’t “ram it down our throats?” More secular definitions? He just gave those. If he is holding back anything, it is his negative views of religion. I get the sense that he doesn’t want to upset his religious readers.

However, none of those things he mentioned are actually synonymous with the concept of 'redemption.'

But since he took the time to show that these are included in his conception of that word, or in his intentions as a writer, then we are left with two possibilities. Either, you are right that redemption isn’t captured by his elucidation of that term, or you don’t understand Donaldson’s usage of the term because you refuse to allow it a wider meaning. If the former is true, then perhaps Donaldson recognizes that “redemption” isn’t really accurate to describe his intentions, and is therefore trying to provide a more accurate list precisely because of the religious overtones of that word, and so to avoid them. If the latter is true, then we must (like Donaldson) let go of purely religious connotations for that word and allow it to apply to situations such as “acquiring personal integrity.”

If a person redeems himself, is this not a demonstration of gaining personal integrity? Even the dictionary allows a wider interpretation of this word: Redemption--The act of redeeming or the condition of having been redeemed. Redeem--“To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of. ”

Given that there are widely accepted, textbook definitions of this word which can be understood to include Donaldson’s laundry list of terms, you must only be talking about your personal proclivities in this area, which force you to make assumptions about Donaldson’s psychology! (There’s some irony.) You have to assume that his easy-going personality is masking an intention which is more closely aligned with your own interpretation, in order to sustain this line of argument in the face of his explicitly stated intention.

That should be obvious to even the casual SRD reader.

Then why are we arguing? If you were always talking about a figurative meaning for “spiritual,” then we have always been talking about the same thing. Yet, even in this post (above), you’re still arguing that Donaldson isn’t really saying what he means when he gives a perfectly non-religious explication of “redemption.” If it is obvious, why are you arguing against it?

Not really, since I appeal to philosophy and Penrose is about faith in science. Whether or not consciousness can be emulated artificially is unknown, since it is possible in the long run to at least artificially generate the illusion of consciousness.

Have you read Penrose’s work? He is not “about faith” in anything. Nor is Penrose talking about emulating consciousness. He explicitly tackles the issue of simulated consciousness, and distinguishes his position against it.

They are forever promising new developments and even new sciences which will eventually explain consciousness. Ten years ago, someone predicted that the final explanation would occur in ten years. Ten years before that, someone else promised the same ending.

Are you implying that science will never be able to solve consciousness? What is that “faith” based on?

I’m curious why you think functionalism seems to be the only viable philosophical explanation of consciousness (if that is a correct paraphrase of your other post), but you seem to disparage the expectation that science will one day explain consciousness mechanically and materialistically. Functionalism is the position of “hard AI,” the idea that consciousness is nothing more than algorithms which can be performed on a universal Turing machine. If you think consciousness is more than this (i.e. something which can’t be explained by science), then what is your alternative to functionalism? Mysticism? Are you a dualist?

I am very rigorous, and am constantly surprised when people aren't rigorous back at me.

You must be constantly surprised, indeed. So that I don’t walk around in a constant state of shock, I usually assume that most people don’t have their Ph.D in philosophy, yet.

Thanks, I had to go look up that term. It doesn't explain much, it only hypothesizes that there is something "neutral" out there to explain both mind and matter.

It’s not meant as an explanation, but an ontological “stepping back” from an entrenched, uncritical history of the usage of “mind” and “matter,” a move which allows one the possibility of untangling the Cartesian knot of dualism (while simultaneously avoiding either kind of reductionism). It is an attempt to wipe clean the assumptions of naïve realism (combined with spiritualism) which have led to erroneous conceptions which were themselves never rigorous in the first place.

And then of course there is still the problem of matter possessing free-will in a universe where matter is ruled by determinism. But not everything is ruled by deterministic laws. Why does some matter get a bye?

Good question. I think it has to do with quantum mechanics, and that consciousness is the bridge between the quantum world of indeterminacy, and the “macro” world of apparent determinism. It’s possible that the brain is an Bose-Einstein condensate, which can attain quantum states of arrangement on a large scale.

As for the new science Penrose suggested which would explain all this: Such a science already exists; it is called "philosophy."

But after 25 centuries, philosophy hasn’t done much better than science at solving the enigma of consciousness. I think the problem, despite your "issues" with scientists who try to be philosophers, is that there is not enough communication between scientists and philosophies. These two schools of investigation must inform each other, and neither can rely upon “armchair” versions of the other and yet hope to make useful headway. Without understanding the physical mechanisms which produce consciousness, philosophy will only be dogmatic metaphysics or solipsistic meditations. And yet without properly grounding science upon a correct method of phenomenological investigation, science will forever include unfounded assumptions that go beyond experience.

This is why I am a big fan of Edmund Husserl, and the school of phenomenology in general. It is an attempt to ground the practice of doing science upon a sound philosophical understanding of consciousness and its relation to the world. (That’s a really poor description of it, forgive me, it’s been a while since I’ve tried to put it into words.) As a fan of Kant, you might want to check out Husserl. In my opinion, he corrects what Kant got wrong, and completes his project of connecting or resolving the conflicting schools of empiricism and rationalism.

I think we both made the same mistake here in assuming an entire linguistic history behind the terms we both chose: psychological vs spiritual. You thought I meant something materialistic, reductionist, and scientific. I thought you meant something dualistic, mystical, or supernatural. While I'm still not clear on what exactly you mean by "spiritual," I do realize I underestimated you. And, I hope I've made my own meaning clearer.

I notice you didn’t address this part. What do *you* mean by “spiritual?”

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Quick response for now: I mean by 'spiritual' whatever anybody wants it to mean.

[Vraith]

Damn, you two cover a lot of ground. Pretty fascinating stuff, too for those with certain interests. I'm going to ignore a lot of it, [though not because it's uninteresting or doesn't merit comment] for just a couple points.

I vigorously [and sometimes rigorously] deny that the Universe is deterministic on the macro level [though it is more determined than the quantum, apparently]. To be sure, it is bound...conditions can set fairly rigid limits on possibilities. There may be [probably are] conditions that determine only one outcome [I can't imagine a case where permanent, undefended exposure to vacuum has any outcome other than death for a normal human being] Nevertheless, much of the macro world functions on the basis of probability-within-limits, and generally speaking the greater the complexity of a system, the less determined the results. There also appear to be situations that are determined yet unpredictable [though this may be merely the insufficiency of current methods of prediction, or an artifact inherent in all methods of prediction...the math exceeds my interest, certainly, my ultimate limitations, likely]

On redemption, I think you're on the right track, Malik. I would say that redemption precisely fits SRD's intentions [one of them anyway]. The other options, though, are not simply [or only] 'alternative terms': they are sub-sets, or members of the set, included in [encompassed by] redemption. Even if there is an attempt/intention to avoid the religious overtones, however, the context implicitly shows that the religious overtones result only when there is a reduction of the concept to a single definition. [trying to define the the set from one, and only one member or falsely claiming there is only one member]
Please, continue your conversation...though I don't promise not to intrude occaisionally.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Vraith,

Christianity isn't required to produce redemption. However, we must remember that TC is "on a spiritual journey." So Whether or not you take "spiritual" in the religious sense (it doesn't matter in this case), that term does tend raise the level of the discussion beyond the empirical or secular.

When people state in online or newspaper romance ads that they are "spiritual but not religious," what do you think that means to them? Are they ghosts who don't believe in God?

What is meant by the term "personal growth"? Does it have something to do with Viagra or perhaps Propecia?

Here is an interesting definition of "spirituality" which I found at

www.religioustolerance.org/gl_s1.htm
Spirituality: This term is defined quite differently by monotheists, polytheists, humanists, followers of new age, Native Americans, etc. A common meaning is "devotion to metaphysical matters, as opposed to worldly things." Another is "Activities which renew, lift up, comfort, heal and inspire both ourselves and those with whom we interact." [Italics in original.]

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Malik,

I read Husserl before I read Kant many years ago. All I can say to you is that Husserl is correcting what he thinks is wrong with Kantianism. I'm not saying that Kant was perfect, only that his mistakes were minor and do not affect his thesis.

However, Kantianism is not phenomenology, and the attempt to reduce it to phenomenology only leads to the illusion of a pure, empirical idealism untainted by any transcendental notions.

There is something to be said for Husserl's "bracketing" method. It is a way of distilling out those concepts which are transcendental to a given empirical judgment. It appears however that Husserl has no critique of Space and Time proper to the task of illuminating the role of human consciousness in experience. That would be a most fundamental error on his part. And indeed, Husserl is expressing the psychologism which Kant feared so much that he had to write a second edition of the Critique in order to avoid being charged with it.

--

I see from your post that you still assume some physical processes are responsible for producing consciousness. It is one of those assumptions which can never be disproven, and thus falls prey to Karl Popper's critique of science with his falsification thesis against methods which are inherently deductive and dogmatic, for example, Positivism.

It is, in other words, an ad hoc thesis to suggest that consciousness is produced from physical processes prior to the actual establishment of this as fact.

--

I am implying that science may not be able to establish a firm foundation for consciousness. On the other hand, there is the possibility that if science does manage to find a solution to the problem (what problem?), then the solution may be worse than the problem.

Man needs irresolvable problems for which he believes there may be a solution somewhere down the road. This gives him hope. It is the only real reason for scientific progress to continue. It has nothing to do with higher technologies which may drift down to the populace to make their lives more comfortable, or to produce implements of warfare with which to defend our comfortable lives from those who would take it from us. It has to do with the fascination that scientific reason has with solving problems - and if the deepest questions are irresolvable, so much the better.

Consider a hyperbole on an x-y coordinate system. The arc of the figure approaches infinitely close to the two axes, but it must never touch ground, because if it does, then it is no longer a hyperbole.

Regarding the scientific quest for knowledge, science represents the hyperbole, while the x-y axes represent absolute truth at infinity. The absolutes are there, not to eventually solve the equation, but to keep the hyperbole progressing toward infinity without however actually reaching it.

This is what makes other fields of endeavor necessary to fill the role. "Infinity," through its very form, serves also as a ground to inform the sciences as to their own proper functioning with regard to the practical realm, that is, the practical employment of science's findings beyond the theoretical limit for which there is no scientific answer. So it not only acts as a mathematical limit, it brings its own concepts to science, concepts that science cannot bring to itself while still being considered science and not something like religion.

Science is thus limited to and guided by Practical Reason.

There are some obvious practical limits to science that everybody knows about, such as the possible violation of humanity (Kant's CI of humanity) which prevents scientists from experimenting on humans in cruel ways. (Notice that the ideal of "humanity" is made explicit as a constant theme in the Gap when it comes to dealing with the Amnion, and to answer the question at the heading of this thread, that is what the Gap Series is about.)

So when it comes to dealing with "spirituality," it far more closely approaches the ideal of "humanity" than anything to do with actual spirits or ghosts hovering around.

The problem is, I don't know if that's what SRD means, and I don't want to ram my own answer down his throat. So I believe that the proper answer to your question of what I mean by "spirituality" is "whatever you want it to mean."

[Vraith]

Vraith,

Christianity isn't required to produce redemption. However, we must remember that TC is "on a spiritual journey." So Whether or not you take "spiritual" in the religious sense (it doesn't matter in this case), that term does tend raise the level of the discussion beyond the empirical or secular.

When people state in online or newspaper romance ads that they are "spiritual but not religious," what do you think that means to them? Are they ghosts who don't believe in God?

What is meant by the term "personal growth"? Does it have something to do with Viagra or perhaps Propecia?

Here is an interesting definition of "spirituality" which I found at

www.religioustolerance.org/gl_s1.htm
Spirituality: This term is defined quite differently by monotheists, polytheists, humanists, followers of new age, Native Americans, etc. A common meaning is "devotion to metaphysical matters, as opposed to worldly things." Another is "Activities which renew, lift up, comfort, heal and inspire both ourselves and those with whom we interact." [Italics in original.]

Actually this is pretty close to my intended goal. If you start where Malik was, you can't really stop there [well, you could...] because you've simply displaced the issue, not answered it. At that point, you either exclude [an error, probably one that leads back to the beginning] Or include, which I did, and you end up in this territory [whether you're avoiding the religious aspect or not, as you say, is unimportant]. I simply thought it interesting that Malik ends up here. [which he might not be entirely opposed to, if you can rid it of the warm fuzzy and mechanically impossible bits ]

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Vraith,

The definition at that site states "spirituality" as "devotion to metaphysical matters, as opposed to worldly things." I think the relevant, defining aspect here is "as opposed to worldly things." The rest could be metaphysical, theological, or whatever. Because if you are opposed to worldly things, then there is a whole slew of ways to practice this, even devoutedly or "religiously." But the spiritual is not necessarily in opposition to worldly things. Sometimes it acts as a guide through the world. SRD could just as well be saying that TC is on a metaphysical journey. Or perhaps it is a sort of personal growth, spiritual in that watered-down sense.

One could say that is only psychological. But I have seen too much evidence through eight books of the Chrons that personal growth always entails transcendence, or better, apotheosis, the achievement of an ideal which transcends one's normal everyday outlook on life.

In the Christian sense, which I believe SRD has secularized in a way which is not merely psychological, the individual has been "born again" through a conversion experience, the sins of the old person are forgiven as if they were committed by a different person altogether. In Eastern Mysticism, there is an enlightenment experience, sometimes known as satori, which often changes a person for the better. Whatever SRD's version of enlightenment is, it encompasses both but does not partake in either.

Kant called it a "change of heart," an overcoming of "radical evil" in oneself. The radical evil in us, like LF, is not thereby defeated, but its influence is easily turned away.

Linden is a case-in-point for radical evil, she is entirely under the sway of LF, her every choice "conduces" to his ends. The issue of choice is crucial to understanding Kant's thesis as well. Even when all our choices are motivated toward the good, we must always acknowledge the fact that, because the evil remains in us, we can never know with absolute certainty if doing good is our actual aim, that is, if in our heart of hearts we are truly pure in any given instance.