BOOK CLUB JANUARY: "A Man Without A Country" by Kurt Vonnegut

[CrispyQ]

“A Man without a Country” by Kurt Vonnegut
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158322713X/104-5528055-3561507?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance



Please check out the newly revised guidelines for 2006:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=209x3044


=====
DON'T FORGET TO HELP OUT DU!
Part of your Amazon.com purchase will go to DU if you buy through this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/home/home.html/104-3444144-6171150

[petgoat]

1. Kurt signed the WorldCantWait statement

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

[Jim__]

2. Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge

In the beginning of chapter 2, Vonnegut says, And I consider anybody a twerp who hasn't read the greatest American short story, which is "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" by Ambrose Bierce.

I just read it. Wow! Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Thanks for the link...

I can't afford the book this month... but I can catch up on Vonnegut himself.

:)

on edit:
Thanks again! excellent read.
#1 rated Twilight Zone epidose of all time :)

[CrispyQ]

4. My book hasn't arrived yet, but I did read this short last night.

Very interesting. I kept thinking, what a survivor! Hanged, almost drowned, shot at, hungry, thirsty, just trying to make his way home. And then . . .



Was this a Twilight Zone episode? Or are you saying is should be?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. It was, according to your link....

at the end of the story text... it says....

The Project Gutenberg Etext of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge





#2 in our Ambrose Bierce series


:)

[kliljedahl]

6. I bought that book the day it came out

Read it that night. What a wise, wise man. A quote from that book is my sig line on another site:
"We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."
- Kurt Vonnegut



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Jim__]

7. The quote that you cite ...

It seems a little bit out of place in this book. Although, I agree, it is a reflection of Vonnegut's wisdom. IIRC - I'm at work farting around and so can't check the book - he uses this quote in the chapter where he is talking about going out to buy an envelope; and he doesn't want to tell his wife where he's going because she'll tell him that he should buy 1000 envelopes. He enjoys going down to the newspaper stand, getting in line, seeing people, maybe talking to them, talking to the vendor. Today, of course, with e-mail, e-business, etc. we don't do enough of meeting and talking to people. We've become very efficient at business. But, to what purpose?

But, the quote seems out of place because of the nature of the book. The book is somewhat depressing - Vonnegut may have lost all hope. And in a place where you can lose all hope, in a place where a city can be firebombed as an experiment; you ought to do more than just fart around.

But I always have that problem with Vonnegut. His books are amusing. But they also encompass a certain hopelessness, a futility - he smokes Pall Malls hoping that they'll kill him.

[CrispyQ]

10. I thought the key point in the section you mention was this:

"Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing."

Do you end up with nothing? Is the value of virtual communities less than live ones? Does the time we invest in virtual communities detract from our live communities?

To a degree I think he's right in that electronic communities are virtual; no electricity, no computer, no community. (On the dark side, our electronic communities could cease to exist through censorship. I’m sure if bushco could find a way to keep the masses from using the internet for anything but shopping, they would. They must hate that communities like DU exist.)

But do you end up with nothing? Not entirely. DU is largely responsible for my education about what has happened to our country since Reagan. I take this knowledge from my electronic community & use it, spread it & share it in my live community through conversations, LTTEs, etc.

However, it is easy to fall into a trap of spending more time online with your virtual acquaintances than to socialize in person, especially if you are at all introverted. I have had to set time limits to my online time on occasion. :blush:


Look at that! I used a semi-colon in my post! ;-)

[Jim__]

13. It depends on what the meaning of "build" is.

Or, maybe, it depends on what the meaning of "nothing" is. Or, maybe, it depends on what the meaning of "are" is. :-)

The lines that you cite, come from the paragraph: Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing. We are dancing animals. How beautiful it is to be able to get up and go out and do something. We are here are on earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different.

If we are "dancing animals"; as in "dancing animals" and nothing else; then electronic communities really do build nothing for us. You can't dance electronically - or at least its no fun.

But, I think your semi-colon comment captures the spirit of what Vonnegut was actually saying.

I was glad to go back and re-read that chapter. Vonnegut says he lives on 48th street between 2nd and 3rd avenue. I grew up on 51st street between 1st avenue and the East River Drive - about 5 blocks from where Vonnegut lives. Back then, we lived in old apartment buildings, no air conditioning, very few TVs. It got stifling hot and humid in the summer and so people would go down and sit on the stoop which was a natural place to socialize. I've never lived in another neighborhood where people socialized that much. In surburban communities with air-conditioning, TV, the Internet, etc; people tend to stay in their houses a lot more rather than just go sit on the stoop and socialize - and, hopefully, get to dancing.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. But how can you live in the world and be aware of all the evilness that

humans perpetrate on one another without acquiring a certain amount of hopelessness. I am often suspicious of people who are peppy in the extreme. To me, they come across as shallow and unaware of what's really going on in the world. (which is not to argue for moroseness or depression as a lifestyle, but I don't think Vonnegut could be so insightful or nearly as funny if he didn't state the obvious, which is that the outlook for our species, given our history, is pretty grim).

[Jim__]

22. You're right, the future looks grim.

But, I view hopelessness as categorical. I believe any perceptive person will live with a desperate fear. But that desperate fear should motivate us to act. To me, Vonnegut accepts the grim future as inevitable.

[OrwellwasRight]

23. I think the act of writing about it shows that he does not accept it.

Unlike a nihilist, I think he writes to point out the absurdities and evilness in American society and culture so that we will recognize and do something about it. Maybe he points out what is inevitable, unless we change it.

I think that's why he uses comedy, so that we will keep reading because it is enjoyable and funny. We don't put it down; we keep going.

[CrispyQ]

8. I'll post more about the book later, but I wanted to tell everyone,

this book is a very quick read. I read it last night in about 2 hours.

[Jim__]

9. "I wonder what the poor people are doing tonight"

One of the themes of this book is humor. Vonnegut sees humor as an almost physiological reaction to fear. He describes a funny TV show that he once wrote for where they mentioned death at least once in each show; and that this mention of death subtly made the audience laugh more deeply at the jokes.

During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, Vonnegut was taken prisoner of war and eventually he wound up in Dresden. He talks about this in his novel, "Slaughterhouse Five." Everyday, bombers would fly over Dresden and the air raid sirens would go off. But, they never bombed the city. There wasn't really anything there to target. People would just watch the planes fly over and go about their business.

He and the other POWs were kept below ground in an old slaughter house - Slaughterhouse Five. One night when the planes flew over, they did bomb the city. It's the famous firebombing of Dresden. Essentially, the entire city was wiped out that night. Vonnegut and the prisoners, deep below ground, were some of the very few people to survive this bombing.

The final paragraph of the first chapter is:
While we were being bombed in Dresden, sitting in a cellar with our arms over our heads
in case the ceiling fell, one soldier said as though he were a duchess in a mansion on a
cold and rainy night, "I wonder what the poor people are doing tonight." Nobody laughed, but
we were still all glad he said it. At least we were still alive! He proved it.

Vonnegut's humor has always seemed somewhat morbid to me, and I can't imagine myself in that cellar. But, I am pretty sure of 2 things. I would not have come up with that line. It would have helped if someone else did.

[CrispyQ]

12. Yes, it was a great line!

It shows that in death, in facing death, we are all equals.

[CrispyQ]

11. We are living as members of Alcoholics Anonymous

KV tells of when he was a kid. "...we used to draw pictures of houses of tomorrow, boats of tomorrow, airplanes of tomorrow & there were all these dreams of the future. Of course, at that time, everything had come to a stop. The factories had stopped, the Great Depression was on & the magic word was Prosperity. We were preparing for it."

Today we have "nuclear submarines slumbering on the floor of fjords in Iceland & elsewhere, crews prepared . . . to turn industrial quantities of men, women & children into radioactive soot & bone meal..."

He says we are in incredible danger & that he doesn't think that people give a damn whether the planet goes on or not. He says we are all living as members of Alcoholics Anonymous do, day by day. And a few more days will be enough. He says that he knows of very few people who dream of a world for their grandchildren.

Is this where we have arrived? Will we have to hit rock bottom again before we start to dream of a better future -- dream of time beyond just a few more days? What is it about homo sapiens that we keep repeating this destructive cycle? What if we've mucked it up so bad there is no climbing out of the hole we've dug this time?

Few corporations look beyond next quarter; politicians beyond the next election; sports stars beyond the next season; Hollywood beyond the next blockbuster; the sheeple beyond the next shopping trip; me beyond the next weekend. And the leader of the apocalyptic pack, the dimson, said history doesn't matter cuz we'll be dead.

Will our inability to visualize our future lead to our destroying our future?

[Jim__]

14. This is what makes me think KV is a little schizophrenic.

I have a hard time resolving his statements that: We are here on Earth to fart around. and: ... crews prepared . . . to turn industrial quantities of men, women & children into radioactive soot & bone meal....

In a world where we are in tremendous danger, where cities are firebombed as an experiment and crews are prepared to turn industrial quantities of men, women and children into radioactive soot and bone meal; it seems like farting around should be the farthest thing from our mind.

I think I know how he means it. The best things we can do in life, we do when we are "farting around," just meeting and talking to people. But, if we really spend our time doing that; then, we are leaving our fate in the hands of these various mad bombers and deadly crews. It's nice to wish these people spent their time "farting around" rather than plotting the destruction of the earth; but, reality is that they don't; and that changes how we have to live.

As to your questions: Is this where we have arrived? Will we have to hit rock bottom again before we start to dream of a better future -- dream of time beyond just a few more days?

I don't believe we have arrived where KV says we have. Most people definitely give a damn whether the planet goes on or not. But, they don't believe thay can effect this. They believe this is in the hands of "other people", world leaders. Most people believe, or claim to believe, that these leaders will not destroy the world. That some basic intelligence and decency will prevent that from happening.

I also think that, at this point in history, hitting "rock bottom" means that we have turned industrial quantities of men, women, and children into radioactive soot and bone meal.And, whoever is left will not be dreaming of any future but spend all day, everyday, struggling to survive.

I think KV is an intelligent person. Certainly he has lived through a lot. Maybe I'm not quite getting what he is saying. He undersatands our predicament. Yet, he seems to embrace the philosophy he claims most people have. He seems to think "farting around" is really all we can do, and therefore that's what we should do. He seems to accept the destruction of humanity as inevitable, and so, not worth resisting.

[CrispyQ]

15. I think you are right that he means

the best things we can do in life, we do when we are 'farting around,' just meeting & talking to people.

That is EXACTLY his point! We need to go out & about - everyday! - & interact with the REAL people who make up our REAL communities. We need to ask, "Do you know anybody who ever won the lottery? to those we meet in the grocery store who are buying a lotto ticket. When we encounter a guy in the Post Office line with a cast on his foot, we need to ask him, "What happened to your foot?" not stand there mute, removed. We need to ENGAGE ourselves with the REAL people we share our REAL world with. This makes our existence REAL, so it becomes something we care about, something we are invested in. G-d forbid, we distance ourselves, seclude ourselves, extract ourselves from our daily LIVE interactions. Cuz when that happens, we have nothing to care for, nothing to invest in, nothing that we can claim as a part of us. Hence, electronic communications give us nothing, but farting around engages us in our LIVE/local community.

I think what KV is saying is -- if we would all just learn to appreciate the value of 'farting around,' getting to know each other, interacting with each other, being actively involved in our REAL & local communities, we wouldn't end up with people in power plotting the destruction of earth. There is a reason the word community is built on the word UNITY. Community is the only cohesion an individualistic/self-centered species has to connect to those around them.

===

I hope you are right that people care about the future of the planet, but even if they do, what is the difference between caring & doing nothing & not caring?


It's a sad comment, but "industrial quantities of men, women, and children into radioactive soot & bone meal" is one of the most striking descriptives I've ever read!

[Jim__]

20. I think the difference between people who care and do nothing

and people who don't care, is that people who don't care are beyond our reach. People who care can still be persuaded to act.

I agree with the rest of what you say. Vonnegut recognizes what it is to be human and I believe he is appealing to us on that level.

[CrispyQ]

26. You make a valid point in that difference.

I had not thought of it that way. Which is a motivator to try to figure out which ones still care & to try to reach out to them.

[OrwellwasRight]

17. In that particular place in the book, I think he means "farting around"

as an alternative to building bombs, making profits, etc. In other words, he means, simplify, love your neighbor, don't get so wrapped up in other stuff that you miss the good time you could be having with your loved ones. Kind of like the message of Bokononism in Cat's Cradle. Remember how useless he says the "false relationships" of corporations, alumni, fraternities, hometowns, etc. are? The real connections are the ones that count, not the false families.

I think that is what he means in that spot.

But the great thing about Vonnegut is that he doesn't necessarily have just one overriding message. He throws a lot on the table and it is up to us to consider it all and take away what makes us a greater person. I think he would be gratified if we ll became loving, positive human beings who do care about the future of the planet, I think he realizes that not everyone will, so in the meantime, enjoy what we can.

I take one of his messages to be: Better to be the swimming globs of Galapagos than the engineers of Player Piano. If you can't save the planet, better to do nothing at all than to help destroy it.

[Jim__]

21. In general, I agree with what you are saying.

I have 2 questions though.

First, do you find in this book any direction on how we should make things better for the future? I agree that by "farting around", we can enrich our own lives. But, is there anything that tells us how we might enrich the lives of our children and grandchildren; anything that will help us to improve the lives of the seventh following generation?

Second, do you agree with Vonnegut that it's better to be the swimming globs of Galapagos than the engineers of Player Piano? I don't. To me the real value of life is consciousness. The swimming globs of Galapagos are autocatlytic chemical reactions. Their value is in their potential to evolve into something that has consciousness. The engineers of Player Piano already have consciousness. Their potential for "good" is much greater than the swimming globs.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. 2 attempted answers

1) No, I don't. Well, unless you can take "be kind" as an answer. But I don't think that is his job. As an author/observer, he points things out. As activists, it is up to us to respond.

2) I wish I had a good answer to that. I mean it is true to say that it is better not to do anything at all than to do harm, but I agree with your statement about potential. So, is it better to let the engineers fuck up, and fuck up badly for a while with no guarantee of improvement? Remember how most of that society was in the "Reeks and Wrecks" who felt useless and worthless and like there was no point to living? To make most of humanity feel like that has got to be one of the worst things that can be done to other people. Is it better to allow cruel behavior to persist with only the hope that people will wake up so that it will get better? I could pick an answer, but I might pick a different one tomorrow.

[OrwellwasRight]

18. Anyone else disappointed that:

-the book contained many recycled passages from his other books and not so much new material?
-was not even more overtly political and did not contain more criticism of the present Administration?

NOTE: This by no means diminishes my opinion of Vonnegut. I have loved him for 20 years. If I could only read one author for the rest of my life, it would be Vonnegut. There are days when I thank God for him because reading his books when I was younger sometimes made me feel normal because I finally found that I was not alone in being disgusted and depressed by the vileness and greed in our society and yet able to love people and to make jokes and laugh.

[Jim__]

19. I was not disappointed by those things.

Before I bought the book, I read the first chapter in the book store. So, I expected it to contain a lot of recycled ideas.

As to criticism of the administration, what remains to be said? Anyone who is interested already knows that this administration lies, commits wholesale torture of prisoners including children, and invaded a country and killed up to 100,000 of its residents on a pretext. In short, we already know that his is a corrupt, murdering, scumbag administration. The documentation exists. There are other books to read on this.

What we can get from this book is a more humanistic viewpoint, how life should be lived versus how we are currently living. The stark contrast should shock us.

What I think is missing now is a plan of action. Given the government we live under, what should we do?

[OrwellwasRight]

25. I think more remains to be said about the criticism of the

Administration. Not all Vonnegut readers are already "the converted." Some people just read him because he is enjoyable and funny. They may be completely a-political, but he is commanding their attention and can say more. That is what I found disappointing.

The fact that there was an assumption that all the readers already agreed witgh him is what I found wanting. I think his other books lay out the full story and bring you along for the ride. It wasn't a bad book. I just expected more is all.

[CrispyQ]

27. Guessers

“Human beings have had to guess about almost everything for the past million years or so. The leading characters in our history books have been our most enthralling, & sometimes our most terrifying, guessers.

“My I name two of them?

“Aristotle & Hitler.

“One good guesser & one bad one.”


KV states that the masses, “feeling inadequately educated . . . have had little choice but to believe this guesser or that one.” Guessers are not interested in saving lives; they are not interested in improving the fortune of others. They are only interested in is being listened to. "It’s their turn to guess & guess & be listened to."

Of course, the fact is that the guessers frequently don’t know anymore than the common people -- until now. In the information age, solid information is readily available to the masses. And our leaders hate this. They fear it, because they fear us breaking away from the tradition of listening to them. They fear our thinking for ourselves. So, in an attempt to send us back to the ‘snake oil standard’ they scorn science, research, investigation. They have disdain for those of us with open minds looking for truth.

In the movie “Showdown in Little Tokyo” the Tia Carrere character states, “Most people only do the right thing when it’s the easy thing to do.” Sadly, I believe that statement is very true. It seems we work hard to reach a higher level of comfort & once we reach it, we rest on our laurels to the point of complacency & are then in danger of losing everything we worked for. Therefore, part of the solution to make things better for the future is to set an example of being a wise human. Be someone who questions authority, seek the truth no matter how obscure, refuse to conform simply to fit in & make your way easier. Be honorable.

[Jim__]

28. If Aristotle is classified as a guesser

I agree with just about everything Vonnegut says in this chapter. This is the chapter where he states a number of things this country is currently engaged in; then finally states that he is a man without a country.

But, I didn't understand why he used the word "guesser".

First, if we classify Aristotle as a guesser, then I disagree with the statement Guessers ... are only interested in ... being listened to.. I believe Aristotle was engaged in a search for the truth. Some of the things that Aristotle said can certainly be classified as guesses. For instance, he accepted the idea that there were 4 basic elements and that everything was some combination of them. We now know this isn't true. But, it was a step in the right direction. There are basic elements that everything else is composed of. And, when we talk about Aristotle's development of formal logic, he was doing more than guessing. He was formulating rules of logic most of which are still accepted today.

But the really scary thing for me is Hitler. Hitler wasn't guessing. He was as certain as any human being has ever been. At least as certain as people in the information age are about the things they know. Suppose Germany had won WWII. My bet is that we still would have had an information age. The "facts" that we glean from this age would be largely the same if Germany had won. But, what would we be certain of that today we are now certain is wrong. My bet is that most of us would accept Hitler's philosophy. We would accept his certainty. That's the part that scares me. We are a product of our times and our history. Most of the things that we accept, we accept based on eventualities in the past. How much of what we are certain of is wrong? And, how do we find out which of our certain beliefs are wrong? How is our situation different from the people who lived in ages prior to the information age?

[CrispyQ]

29. I also thought "guesser" was a bad word choice.

I think 'leader' or 'person of influence' would have been better. I think by using the word guesser, he is saying that any one of us, given the right circumstances, could just as easily achieve a position of power & influence -- that these leaders are not necessarily smarter, & in some cases, not even better informed. They are just lucky -- in the right place at the right time.

I have a question regarding your comments about Hitler. Are you saying that if Hitler had won WWII that the majority of people would now believe that the inequality of races is inevitable? That the people should be led by a leader that has absolute authority? That the world would have possibly furthered his persecution of the Jews or at the very least, not made a second attempt to stop him? Would you say the same about the Civil War? That if the north had lost, our country would likely still support slavery today? I bring this up because I have never thought of this before & want to clarify your view before discussing further.

[Jim__]

30. That's pretty much what I am saying.

This may sound somewhat fer-fetched in today's environment. But, I'm not sure that it really is that far-fetched.

Think about post World War I Germany. Most of the German people were understandably convinced that they had not lost World War I, but rather that they had been betrayed. It's easy to underdstand that thinking. Russia which had millions of troops in the war, signed a treaty with Germany and withdrew from the war after the tsar was overthrown. True, the US entered the war; but we didn't supply anything like a replacement number of troops. It would be quite natural for the German people to assume that they were just about to win the war. Then, their leaders surrender; I believe without any major military defeat.

Then the Treaty of Versailles virtually guarantees that Germany will be pauperized for generations to come. Germany is thrown into chaos and the feeble Weimar Republic stumbles around. Hitler seizes power and restores order and pride to the country; then sets out to, essentially, conquer the world. Had he succeeded, who could say he was wrong? He could trumpet the power that is brought about through the combination of the economic vitality of corporations and the military strength of a nationalistic, furhrer-run government. I think the world would be left with little choice but to accept the proven proposition, fascism works.

Of course, this is nothing but speculation with regard to Hitler. He lost. What I wonder is how many times in our history did a hitler-like idea win? And, what preposterous propositions do we accept as true because experience has "proven" them to be true? And, does the information-age really offer us much hope of uncovering these false propositions?

I'm not sure that we are in a much better position than humans have been in the past.

[CrispyQ]

31. Just cause

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke

I think there have been several times in history when a Hitler type ideology won. We are seeing a new fascism emerging in our country. But there have also been several times in history when liberal ideals were in force.

There will always be people of integrity who will stand against injustice, who will fight the good fight simply because it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, too many people blindly follow a leader, regardless of the leaders honor or lack of it. They listen to words & don't analyze if the leaders actions back his words. We're seeing that now in our country.

I think if Hitler had succeeded it would only have been some time till the allies re-grouped & tried again. If the North had not prevailed in the Civil War, in time they would have tried again. In both cases, it may have taken years before a leader with integrity, vision, charisma & drive motivated the people to take up the just cause again, & it may have taken several attempts, but it would have happened.

Everything is cyclical. Once Hitler is defeated, slavery is abolished, the 'dark' side retreats for a time, regains their footing & eventually gets a stronghold once again. And vice versa. The work of FDR provided us with 40 years of progressive programs that benefited & advanced the cause of the common man. The current neo-con regime has been working to get to the point they are today ever since then. And if people in our own country can't take them out of power, someone else will.

As for your question, "does the information-age really offer us much hope of uncovering these false propositions?" it will only provide us the truth if we search for it. Closed minds will not accept the truth if it hits them between the eyes. Therefore, I sadly agree with your last statement: I'm not sure that we are in a much better position than humans have been in the past.

[Jim__]

32. You assume there is a dark side.

You say that the allies would have re-grouped and tried again. That's probably true. But, I believe there is usually about a one-generation time-frame on that. (The time-frame depends on how the victor behaves - most Germans now accept our view of the world - there are cases where the loser is not acculturated into the victor's culture - e.g. Israel/Palestine - and the cultural battle continues across generations and centuries.) The children of the allies, if they are acculturated by Hitler, will probably come to accept his values - Democracy is a weak and corrupt form of government; Germany was treated unfairly after WWI; a fuhrer unifies and strengthens a nation; etc.

I have very strong beliefs. I definitely believe that Hitler was wrong. Democracy is good. But, if Hitler had won and I had been raised under his beliefs, would I now just as strongly believe that a fuhrer is necessary; that the Western Democracies in WWII were weak and corrupt. If you say that even having been raised by Hitler, I would still believe in the Western Democracies, can you justify that position?

It's really a question of how do we decide what is "good". I think the determination is largely based on what contributes to the survival of the society. If Hitler had won; then that is very strong evidence that his way is "good".

You say everything is cyclical. I agree. Eventually, someone would have rebelled against a Hitlerian society. But what would they replace it with? Monarchy? Oligarchy? Can you establish that Democracy is intrinsically better than these other forms of government? Or, is that just what we were taught as children?

I accept that in the information age, we know more about the structure of the solar system, more about the workings of the universe than people who lived hundreds of years ago. But, do we know any more about good and evil than people did back then? About good and evil, I think we're still just guessing.

[CrispyQ]

33. lol

I use "dark side" for lack of a better term. Hmmmm . . . Maybe a better term would be "The Opposition." ??? There are some Eastern philosophies that believe there is no good or evil -- that all behaviors serve a purpose.

I think I understand more clearly what you are saying. I took what you said & applied it broadly -- as in, if the Allies had been defeated, fascism in Germany would have lived on unchallenged for a very, very long time. Which may have happened. But my point was that somewhere there were still people of integrity. ('light side?' -- :))

On an individual basis, you are right -- and individuals make up our societies. Challenged & undefeated, individuals who live through an oppressive yet undefeated regime, probably do come to believe their state's way is the right way. That way prevailed, after all. My point, which you agreed with, was that somewhere, in that oppressed state or somewhere else, someone would step up & challenge the oppression again.

But the key of your post is this:

I accept that in the information age, we know more about the structure of the solar system, more about the workings of the universe than people who lived hundreds of years ago. But, do we know any more about good and evil than people did back then? About good and evil, I think we're still just guessing.

And maybe that is exactly what KV meant when he chose the word "guesser."

[CrispyQ]

34. The Good Old Days

KV says, "This planet is in a mess. But it has always been in a mess. There have never been any "good old days," there have just been days." I think you have to have a certain number of years & experience under your belt to see the truth in this.

One of the saddest things he talks about is the prevalence of lack of imagination. He says we are not born with imagination, that it has to be developed by teachers, parents, others. He remembers a time when imagination was an important part of entertainment & says that the 'imagination circuit' responds to the most minimal of cues. But now, there is no need for imagination to entertain yourself -- just turn on some electronic device, a TV, a video game, your computer, & your entertainment will be provided. What have we lost by turning out entire generations who have no imagination?

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
--Albert Einstein


===
And finally, who is the wisest person you know?

[Jim__]

35. Just a couple of thoughts.

This is more or less off the top of my head. But, I wonder if KV's assertions about imagination are not just another form of longing for the "good old days."

I agree that television generally suppresses imagination. I'm not so sure that cyberspace and board games do - Chess, Monopoly, Risk.

I really wonder how much imagination primitive people had. I'm sure they used there imaginations; but I'm not sure that without the various electronic devices and manipulable accoutrements that are currently available exactly how much stimulus their was for the imagination. It seems like a lot of their imagination went into constructs like, "the Thunder god lives on top of the mountain."

It is only with great trepidation that I would disagree with Einstein about anything. But, I would give equal weight to knowledge and imagination. I think they feed off each other. Imagination without knowledge leads to fear of gods and demons. Imagination with knowledge leads to flights to the moon and beyond.

[CrispyQ]

36. Regarding your comment,

"Imagination without knowledge leads to fear of gods and demons. Imagination with knowledge leads to flights to the moon and beyond." I agree. But do you think knowledge can be gained without imagination?

I believe the initial spark of an idea comes from imagination. And once we use our imagination to gain knowledge, that new found knowledge frequently inspires our imagination & we come up with new ideas & more knowledge & then, like you said, they feed off each other.

BTW, I got a real kick out of this statement of yours: "It is only with great trepidation that I would disagree with Einstein about anything." ;)