Kevin's Watch

Lordsfire wrote:Seriously, though, what does it for me is the time difference between Covenant's (and Linden's) "visits" to the Land. That alone suggests to me that the Land exists in some sort of parallel universe or dimension. Otherwise, if it was part of our own universe as we understand it, time would flow as it does for us here on Earth.

wayfriend wrote:

Lordsfire wrote:Seriously, though, what does it for me is the time difference between Covenant's (and Linden's) "visits" to the Land. That alone suggests to me that the Land exists in some sort of parallel universe or dimension. Otherwise, if it was part of our own universe as we understand it, time would flow as it does for us here on Earth.

Good point.

wayfriend wrote:

Lordsfire wrote:Seriously, though, what does it for me is the time difference between Covenant's (and Linden's) "visits" to the Land. That alone suggests to me that the Land exists in some sort of parallel universe or dimension. Otherwise, if it was part of our own universe as we understand it, time would flow as it does for us here on Earth.

Good point.

peter wrote:

wayfriend wrote:

Lordsfire wrote:Seriously, though, what does it for me is the time difference between Covenant's (and Linden's) "visits" to the Land. That alone suggests to me that the Land exists in some sort of parallel universe or dimension. Otherwise, if it was part of our own universe as we understand it, time would flow as it does for us here on Earth.

Good point.

Sorry Guys - I don't buy it. We know that the rate of passage of time is not a constant even in our own Universe, being affected by such things as gravity and speed of motion etc.

peter wrote: Who is to say what conditions may pertain and what effects they may have on the passage of time at the far reaches of the Universe. More significant to me is the existance of 'magic' (if you can call it that) in the Land. It seems to me that in any given universe the rules of physics/existence would need to be the same and the physics of the Land seems fundamentally different enough to justify the belief that it must be in a different/paralell dimension to our/TC's universe.

peter wrote:Yeah WOTWE, there are problems here - firstly I keep (partially) remembering a quote to the effect that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic to a society that has not achieved that level of understanding. And then there is the problem of what exactly IS magic; did we ever posses it here and did it desert us with the advent of sci/tech etc. When/why did miracles stop happening, did the Greek Gods really use the earth as a playground - methinks the topic is running away with me

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

peter wrote:Yeah WOTWE, there are problems here - firstly I keep (partially) remembering a quote to the effect that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic to a society that has not achieved that level of understanding. And then there is the problem of what exactly IS magic; did we ever posses it here and did it desert us with the advent of sci/tech etc. When/why did miracles stop happening, did the Greek Gods really use the earth as a playground - methinks the topic is running away with me

To keep it on topic, Donaldson distinguished magic from physics somewhere in the GI which we always keep discussing here. He said something to the effect that magic is internal while physics is external. I would say that magic is subjective while physics is objective.

SRD wrote:The simplest distinction between magic and technology (fantasy and sf) is that magic is internal where technology is external. The gap drive depends on an arcane manipulation of the laws of physics: the person *using* the gap drive has absolutely no effect on whether or not the drive works. The "impossible" is external, entirely the result of a physical device. Wild magic, in contrast, is an expression of the person wielding its instrument. Different people can do different things with wild magic, as they can with Earthpower--and with every other form of magic in "The Chronicles". An instrument may be necessary (white gold) or it may not (the Ranyhyn don't use tools), but the magic itself articulates the spirit or passion or imagination or transcendance of the person using the instrument or power. ("You are the white gold.") So magic is internal.

Put another way, technology is a means to an end. In one sense or another, magic is not a means: it's an end. In both cases, of course, a person determines the use to which the "impossible" is put. But you could say that in sf the person *chooses* the use, while in fantasy the person *is* the use.

Incidentally, that's why magic is better left (mostly) unexplained. The more it's explained, the more it becomes external: the mere presence of an explanation requires the magic to conform to the rules of that explanation; and if it works that way *here* it should work the same way elsewhere, for anyone--just like a technological device.

Put still another way: in "The Chronicles," the "impossible" describes my characters; in the GAP books, the "impossible" describes the reality inhabited by my characters.

(01/07/2009)

Writers like Clarke--and Hal Clement--and Larry Niven--are reductive materialists. (OK, OK: from time to time, Clarke is a bit less reductive than Clement or Niven.) For them, there can exist only one form of transcendance: that which transcends our present knowledge. In the end, therefore, everything comes down to physics. If it *looks* numinous or spiritual or immeasurable, that's because our perceptions are limited by ignorance, not because reality actually contains anything numinous or spiritual or immeasurable.

I disagree. (Of course, I could be wrong. But so could they.) As far as I'm concerned, life is palpably greater than the sum of its parts. As far as I'm concerned, life *by definition* transcends measurement. Naturally, not all science fiction denies transcendance--and not all fantasy affirms it. But if you want to grasp the difference between what Clarke (for example) is trying to communicate and what I'm trying to communicate, you'll need to recognize that he and I are working from radically distinct paradigms.

Or if that doesn't help, try this. A writer like Clarke is looking outward at the "mysteries" of the universe. I'm looking inward at the "mysteries" of identity, emotion, and imagination. (A sour critic once said of Clarke, "He writes about human beings as if he's never actually met one." Well, guess why.) So even if you assert that "science" will eventually be able to elucidate all the "mysteries" of identity, emotion, and imagination, you can still acknowledge that "magic and monsters" are useful metaphors for describing the actual experience of *having* identity, emotion, and imagination. Such issues don't interest the Clarkes and Clements and Nivens of the world, but they fascinate me.

(01/01/2006)

Orlion wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

peter wrote:Yeah WOTWE, there are problems here - firstly I keep (partially) remembering a quote to the effect that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic to a society that has not achieved that level of understanding. And then there is the problem of what exactly IS magic; did we ever posses it here and did it desert us with the advent of sci/tech etc. When/why did miracles stop happening, did the Greek Gods really use the earth as a playground - methinks the topic is running away with me

To keep it on topic, Donaldson distinguished magic from physics somewhere in the GI which we always keep discussing here. He said something to the effect that magic is internal while physics is external. I would say that magic is subjective while physics is objective.

An excellent summary of what Donaldson said. For those interested:

SRD wrote:The simplest distinction between magic and technology (fantasy and sf) is that magic is internal where technology is external. The gap drive depends on an arcane manipulation of the laws of physics: the person *using* the gap drive has absolutely no effect on whether or not the drive works. The "impossible" is external, entirely the result of a physical device. Wild magic, in contrast, is an expression of the person wielding its instrument. Different people can do different things with wild magic, as they can with Earthpower--and with every other form of magic in "The Chronicles". An instrument may be necessary (white gold) or it may not (the Ranyhyn don't use tools), but the magic itself articulates the spirit or passion or imagination or transcendance of the person using the instrument or power. ("You are the white gold.") So magic is internal.

Put another way, technology is a means to an end. In one sense or another, magic is not a means: it's an end. In both cases, of course, a person determines the use to which the "impossible" is put. But you could say that in sf the person *chooses* the use, while in fantasy the person *is* the use.

Incidentally, that's why magic is better left (mostly) unexplained. The more it's explained, the more it becomes external: the mere presence of an explanation requires the magic to conform to the rules of that explanation; and if it works that way *here* it should work the same way elsewhere, for anyone--just like a technological device.

Put still another way: in "The Chronicles," the "impossible" describes my characters; in the GAP books, the "impossible" describes the reality inhabited by my characters.

(01/07/2009)

And, for further reading on Donaldson's view on the difference between sci-fi and fantasy:

Writers like Clarke--and Hal Clement--and Larry Niven--are reductive materialists. (OK, OK: from time to time, Clarke is a bit less reductive than Clement or Niven.) For them, there can exist only one form of transcendance: that which transcends our present knowledge. In the end, therefore, everything comes down to physics. If it *looks* numinous or spiritual or immeasurable, that's because our perceptions are limited by ignorance, not because reality actually contains anything numinous or spiritual or immeasurable.

I disagree. (Of course, I could be wrong. But so could they.) As far as I'm concerned, life is palpably greater than the sum of its parts. As far as I'm concerned, life *by definition* transcends measurement. Naturally, not all science fiction denies transcendance--and not all fantasy affirms it. But if you want to grasp the difference between what Clarke (for example) is trying to communicate and what I'm trying to communicate, you'll need to recognize that he and I are working from radically distinct paradigms.

Or if that doesn't help, try this. A writer like Clarke is looking outward at the "mysteries" of the universe. I'm looking inward at the "mysteries" of identity, emotion, and imagination. (A sour critic once said of Clarke, "He writes about human beings as if he's never actually met one." Well, guess why.) So even if you assert that "science" will eventually be able to elucidate all the "mysteries" of identity, emotion, and imagination, you can still acknowledge that "magic and monsters" are useful metaphors for describing the actual experience of *having* identity, emotion, and imagination. Such issues don't interest the Clarkes and Clements and Nivens of the world, but they fascinate me.

(01/01/2006)

Orlion wrote:
An excellent summary of what Donaldson said. For those interested:

SRD wrote:The simplest distinction between magic and technology (fantasy and sf) is that magic is internal where technology is external. The gap drive depends on an arcane manipulation of the laws of physics: the person *using* the gap drive has absolutely no effect on whether or not the drive works. The "impossible" is external, entirely the result of a physical device. Wild magic, in contrast, is an expression of the person wielding its instrument. Different people can do different things with wild magic, as they can with Earthpower--and with every other form of magic in "The Chronicles". An instrument may be necessary (white gold) or it may not (the Ranyhyn don't use tools), but the magic itself articulates the spirit or passion or imagination or transcendance of the person using the instrument or power. ("You are the white gold.") So magic is internal.

Put another way, technology is a means to an end. In one sense or another, magic is not a means: it's an end. In both cases, of course, a person determines the use to which the "impossible" is put. But you could say that in sf the person *chooses* the use, while in fantasy the person *is* the use.

Incidentally, that's why magic is better left (mostly) unexplained. The more it's explained, the more it becomes external: the mere presence of an explanation requires the magic to conform to the rules of that explanation; and if it works that way *here* it should work the same way elsewhere, for anyone--just like a technological device.

Put still another way: in "The Chronicles," the "impossible" describes my characters; in the GAP books, the "impossible" describes the reality inhabited by my characters.

(01/07/2009)

AMOK wrote:I said

Why - it's so obvious. It is most definitely a moon

orbiting

Uranus!

Actually, I think the question about where the Land is located is a very good discussion point, and I hope that the original poster did not think I was making fun of him or his question.

I'm sure the person who discovered the planet "Uranus" had no idea it would be used as a punch line to a really stupid joke. But dang, I could not help myself - and my post was purely for humor, not to make fun.

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:Personally, I think the land exists in the mind of an old beggar in an ocher robe, and a handful of psychically-inclined folks have shared with that man's dream.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:Personally, I think the land exists in the mind of an old beggar in an ocher robe, and a handful of psychically-inclined folks have shared with that man's dream.

And the old man just happened to have the ability to lie down in the street and die, literally die, and then allow himself to be revived. After which, he had the ability to simply vanish into thin air as he walked away.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Shuram Gudatetris wrote:Personally, I think the land exists in the mind of an old beggar in an ocher robe, and a handful of psychically-inclined folks have shared with that man's dream.

And the old man just happened to have the ability to lie down in the street and die, literally die, and then allow himself to be revived. After which, he had the ability to simply vanish into thin air as he walked away.

Yes. Thomas Covenant's "real world" is not the real world. You must, I think, realize that when you discuss where the Land is in relation to it. TC's real world is similar enough to our real world that we can believe it is, but those few odd impossibilities prove it is not.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:As you said, Covenant's world is similar enough to our world; and in our world (which is similar to Covenant's), old men don't behave that way unless it is someone's dream or delusion and not a real man.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:As you said, Covenant's world is similar enough to our world; and in our world (which is similar to Covenant's), old men don't behave that way unless it is someone's dream or delusion and not a real man.

Yes. But can we be sure that this is so in TC's real world? For example, in TC's real world, fire can have eyes.

Krazy Kat wrote:Near to where I live, in the district of Sherwood, is a park with adjacent pitch n putt course. It's a lovely spot where the local community can sit on the grass, read a book, picnic with the kids, walk their dog, run and play. But for some unknown reason to me the council had decided to plough several rectangular patches here and there. Not that it stops anyone from enjoying the park, it's just that the patches of ground look a mess and remind me of crop circles...only they're...well...not circles, but rectangles.

Perhaps the Trent University was granted permission to run some study on the weed that's growing in these patches. I don't know anything about botany so I can't tell you what the weeds are but they look remarkably like various types of miniature trees, about six inches high or so.

Between the park and the golfing course are real trees, and one in particular has long spreading branches low to the ground. Around this tree is a grass circle. And around the grass circle is the biggest of the rectangles. As its been baking hot recently it's a super cool place to sit in the shade; read a book, picnic with the kids, walk the dog, run and play -
It's also a good area to just sit and contemplate on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

As I walked back towards main path and across the weeded rectangles I thought to myself how nice it would be to have had a young son and what fun it would've been to visit the park with a bag full of toy soldiers tanks and cars animals and dinosaurs, and to sit and tell stories about how trees are as like the galaxies in the sky blue firmament their leaves the systems of stars and planets mapped out with points and junctions and how these relativities speak in whispers of a bigger meaning than the confines of a local park.

So yeah, the Land is in all of us and with or without us. And sometimes we walk through the Land and sometimes the Land walks through us. You just have to follow the lines on the map and sooner or later the lines on the map will follow you. Failing this, there's always other parks, other towns, cities, countries, worlds, systems, galaxies, swirls of cosmic dust...and ultimately - bedtime.

jackgiantkiller wrote:Time is relative to mass and velosity so a mathamatical formula should be able to work out how far away the other earth, the land is on that dilates time to equal the differant pasage of time between the two earths. but I think its between Oz and wonderland.