Philosophy is not dependent upon either proof or fact, but is entirely speculative or theoretical, and may be expected to speak upon any subject.  Since the nebulous vaporings of philosophy are incapable of poof or demonstration, the scientific accuracy of a statement or theory matters nothing in the pronoucements of philosophical ideas.  I see no need to waste time on any such purely mental exercise, and indeed, wonder why this topic is even in this forum.

A mind, like a home, is furnished by it's owner, so if one's life is cold and bare you can blame no one but yourself.  You have a chance to select from some pretty elegant furnishings. -Louis L'Amour  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-03-27 00:08:53 --

Actually, there are few things as wholly dependent on proof and facts than philosophy. o_o Philosophy, being entirely speculative and theoretical, is not expected to speak upon any subject, but constitutes the arbitrary fabrication of abstract, logical relationships between factual things.
Philosophy was never meant to prove things, simply because such a proof would imply overt oversimplification of the factual element in consideration. Just like logic and mathematics; no matter how adamant the sophisticated equations, the proof is only as applicable to the real world as the definition of the element/concept is to the element/concept itself. >_c

Thus the scientific accuracy of a philosophical statement depends on the level of complexity on which one postulates. And since there is no single person capable of acknowledging and comprehending the world's full complexity(or so I believe), philosophy is left with the sole practical purpose of juxtaposition and evaluation.. Not in a scientific context, but a metaphysical, spiritual, anthropological, etc.

I have to say, though, I don't like too much myself the idea of "caging" in a topic that may sprout from any other. Still, should the occasional Zindell-related question arise, or other more general questions pertaining to the wonders and horrors of the world spring to mind, must(/can) the answer then truly be scientifically accurate?

Anyway, maybe it's for the best that there is a separate forum for more general things(as long as more specific conversation isn't discouraged in other threads!).

Zephon, admit it... by Zindell's definition, you are holistisc to the core.  Maybe even a little further.  Yes...yes, I think holism has even touched your soul a wee bit, I think I see a fingerprint or two.

Bravo for the response. It is a well formulated answer to a harsh and (dare I say) oversimplified opinion of philosophy. Nevertheless my opinion still stands. I'm fond of quotes, so here's another one by an author I can't stand, even though he was a fine and rare teacher.

"Human thought has it's bullsh*t quotient, and human thought about human thought has more than most." -James Gardner

Zindell's treatment of philosophy--and by that I mean his rare skill in blending cyber, mental, and religious beliefs into a homogenous whole, is a glorious and belivable testament to his unequaled skill in world building. In "requiem", at least.

In his fantasy series, from what I can tell (remember I've only read the first book) he follows a more simplistic route, barely touching on the mind, focusing more on the religious aspect, the interconnectedness of all things.  A subject I felt he little touched upon in "requiem."  But that's not quite right either. Say rather, he touched upon it from Danlo's point of view, the shaman within. In "The Lightstone" almost everyone shares the deep reverence and connection to all living things to a greater or lesser extent.

Hmm...I feel I said that poorly.  I'll take a look at this post in a couple days and see if I can't edit it to explain it a bit more clearly.  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-03-26 22:55:04 --

Another question for Zephon, what is the meaning of "Þat eit kyr ok hræddr maðr sem ekki Þorir at skjalfa" it seems to be Nordic? Icelandic? If so, then "skjalfa" means "to shake or shiver, like the beating of your heart when you are scared." I think. But the rest of it is lost on me. I'm no student of languages, but I'm always trying to add to my knowledge.  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-03-27 00:37:34 --

I was browsing through the guestbook and I really enjoyed all the comments by people from around the world who have had thier lives changed by reading Zindell. One satisfied reader (credit goes to Alex Arnes) posted a url to a neat transhumanism web site, devoted to things philosophical and futuristic (such as downloading one's brain into a computer) I decided to re-post it here, I hope you will enjoy it as much as i did. http://www.aleph.se/ and the english translation of the same web site is http://www.aleph.se/Trans/  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-03-27 21:50:40 --

Hehe, why yes, I would consider myself holistic in my worldview, due to a particular determinism demanding a holistic approach. Luckily, however, holism is not mutually exclusive with most other philosophies, but more of a metaphysical "umbrella" dictating things one should always keep in mind. That is, one must never let a holistic approach deter oneself from studying something, even if one lacks the necessary knowledge about the rest. (I would say holism is practical more as a paradigm than as a doctrine.)

Haha that is a very fierce quote by Mr. Gardner

Quote :

Zindell's treatment of philosophy--

I agree with you, and have found that this particular quality of Zindell is perhaps what awes me the most, and draws me to his science-fiction: In too many other works of sci-fi, I get the feeling of the author projecting humans from today into a technologically more advanced future.. ONLY. That is to say, they give men and women from today - with all the contemporary drama and intrigue that ensues - beam weapons and starships, whilst leaving out any notion of cultural, mental, or - my favourite - spiritual development. My personal view is that I think such is a grave underestimation of humanity, and an approach to predicting the future of the human race as a whole lacking in holism.
Hence, I have found Zindell's works of sci-fi vastly more "realistic" than many others, due to far more aspects of the human nature being incorporated. Had, for instance, his universe been dominated by a futuristic projection of ordinary Catholic Christianity, then I would have credited him much less. Instead, the "religions" he proposes are entirely different in many ways, but similar to the old religions in ways befitting human spirituality, and an allusion to humanity's desire for spiritual values permeating their scientifical progress.
In short, the reader gets the impression that Zindell's future human race is vastly developed both technologically, culturally and spiritually, and surely this is both exceedingly difficult(demanding a very broad-minded approach to philosophy) and what he intended.

Quote :

In his fantasy series, from what I can tell..

The differences and similarities of ideals and philosophy constituting the framework of Zindell's fantasy and sci-fi are very intriguing. I will try to explain my view on the matter.
I try not to regard his sci-fi and fantasy as competing, but I also won't regard the Ea Cycle as a spiritual "light" version of his science-fictional works, because of the following:
I find that the medieval setting of his fantasy demands another mindset both of the reader and of the fictional characters. The exact specifics of diversity in said mindsets must be mind-boggling to concretize, but the difference lets the atmospheres in the two books be more realistic in accordance to their setting.
I'll let his sci-fi speak for itself. His fantasy, however, I find lacks the same complexity of philosophy, BUT I do not think this to be a bad thing. Rather, the story of the Ea Cycle is more of a "pure" adventure, a fairy-tale almost, and so focuses more on the emotional valence of the characters. It focuses also on huge ethical and spiritual questions like his sci-fi, but in a more.. down-to-earth way. This is what constitutes some of the immense charm I find his fantasy holds for me; it is simpler in some ways, more "innocent", and it clothes the concept of spiritual search and ethics(and puts a sword in its hand).

I really reccomend reading the full Ea Cycle. If not for the sheer quality of the story and Zindell's lyrical near-prose style, then for the fascinating parallels with his sci-fi. They are good books that should be read with a somewhat lighter mind than his sci-fi.

Quote :

"Þat eit kyr ok hræddr maðr sem ekki Þorir at skjalfa"

I can't believe someone finally asked what it means!
It is Old Norse, and stems from a proverb("He is a scared man indeed, he who doesn't dare to shiver"). It was only meant as a temporary signature however, so I added a cow also("A cow and a scared man doesn't dare to shiver.").
Thank you for the reminder, though. I will actually change it soon. Very good interpretation! Have you previously learned Icelandic or bits of it?  

--Last edited by Zephon on 2008-04-06 08:14:08 --

Dear Ryan. Before delving too much into transhumanism, and telling yourself that it is something you want to believe in, read what I have to say about it. I will make a thread in this forum right now.

No, I never learned any Icelandic, beyond a simple "hello" and "thank you" I learned as a child and have since forgotten.  The bit of translation I cobbled together was from trying to find a translation of your quote on the World Wide Web.  Unsuccessfully, I might add, hence the question.

Thanks for the answer. I must confess, I thought it was going to be something serious and weighty. I think that's too funny.  

--Last edited by Ryan Foster on 2008-04-24 06:22:00 --

I see.
(Well, I too have something to confess: I never "decided" whether I wanted a signature being deeply and heavily philosophical, or light-headed and funny, or ironical to any of the former groups, so I kind of went with a temporary placeholder-sig, which I've used since.)

Staying "on thread", though, I'm wondering about one thing: Are we ever introduced to the previous "Mentalities of Man" throughout the Zindell sci-fi books? I can't recall that we are, except Holism being mentioned as the current(and sixth) Mentality of mankind.  I so wonder how much though Zindell has given this..

Quote :

Are we ever introduced to the previous "Mentalities of Man" throughout the Zindell sci-fi books?

I seem to remember something about the Fifth Mentality being when the Order encountered the Fravrashi and learned hallning and several other mental disiplines, 3,000 years before Danlo's time, when the order was still based on Arcite. Of course this was the same time that Kalinda and Ede turned themselves into gods so that might have something to do with it as well.  I also seem to remember that the destruction of Earth and the scattering was considered the end of one of the mentalities.  Also I think the Age of the Scientists was also considered a mentality.
It's been at least a year since I read "Neverness" and the Requiem trilogy so these answers could be way off. Check the section of "The Broken God" when Danlo begins studing with old father through his experimental phase with cults. I believe that is where it mentions other mentalities.  I know for a fact that Zindell does not talk about all of them (or even if he talks about any of them).  My guess is the time of the Ieldra is the first mentality.  I don't believe Zindell ever made clear whether mentalities were historical ages or changes in humankind's philosopy. I'll edit this the next time I read "The Broken God."

It would be interesting if the Ea Cycle was considered the first mentality. That would mean Zindell has 4 more cards up his sleeve, so to speak.

Hmm thank you, yes I will read the Requiem trilogy again soon as well..
(4 more "cards" played from Zindell's hand would be most welcome! Heh.)