TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: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:
Donaldson wrote:
. . . 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.
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.
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 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.
WormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:]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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Absolutely - couldn't agree more.