Search result

amati

47 result(s) found.

/

The Persistence of Tim by Matthew F. Amati

MainCover

The Persistence of Tim

Matthew F. Amati

I repair artificial spouses.

My shingle reads “Synthi Repairs – No Questions Asked. We Fix Everything.”

They make male Synthis, and they make female ones. Most are bought by the lonely, but too many, usually females, are purchased by the cruel. I fix many more female Synthis than males.

Today my favorite Synthi called to tell me her old man-trouble was back. My heart wobbled when I heard Annie’s voice.

“Oh god, Mr. Marcus, you won’t believe it. Tim’s back from the War.”

“After ten years? I thought he’d been killed in the Lyra Massacre.”

“They never found a body. That’s why I wasn’t recycled. There was still the possibility of a husband out there.”

“A husband who beat you, Annie. So badly, I think I’ve fixed every circuit and servo inside you at some point.”

And that’s why I loathe even the name ‘Tim,’ Annie. Thanks to your Lieutenant Timothi Krankheit. Can’t get away with abusing a real woman, so he buys himself a Synthi. Law doesn’t protect machines.

Annie sighed. “It’s his right. As my purchaser, owner, husband.”

“His right doesn’t make it right. So what’d he do this time? If he cracked your braincase again, I can glue it.”

“He hasn’t touched me. Yet. No sign of his old anger. There’s something else I need, Mr. Marcus.”

You need me to hold you close, Annie, to tell you it’s all right, that even though you’re a machine, you’re exquisite in a way no human woman could be. I’ve repaired everything from your bruised knees to your shaken, fluttering heart. I know you better than anyone.

“I’m not certain that this man who’s returned is really my Tim.”

I made a surprised noise. “You think he’s an impostor?”

“It’s hard for a Synthi to tell these things. We don’t see the way you do, Mr. Marcus. We distinguish by analysis, not by appearances. I need you to verify that the man who has returned is the man who left, all those years ago.”

Yes, all those x-ray corneids and cytoscanners built in, and you beautiful headcases can’t tell a dogcatcher from the Pope unless you take a gander at their Golgi bodies.

“Well, OK. What raised your suspicions?”

“His cells. I examined them, down to the cytoplasm. The cells of this man are not the same cells my Tim had when he left.”

“I see.”

“I am designed for utter, unshakeable loyalty, Marcus.”

Yes, jealous psychopaths demand that. The appeal of a Synthi.

“I belong to Tim. If a man not my owner touches me, I must report to the macerator.”

As I well know, Annie. All this time, I haven’t laid a hand wrong on you. I, who could never afford a luxury such as you.

“Annie, my dear, your problem is conceptual. Are you sitting down? Comfortable? Allow me to tell you a story.”

“All right.”

“It’s about a fellow named Theseus. Theseus had a ship. A wooden sailing ship. Yes, it was a long time ago. Now, after Theseus died, that ship became a famous tourist attraction. It stood in the square at Athens for hundreds of years.”

“The ship was not moved? It did not disappear and then return?”

“No. But the same question came up regarding this ship that you’ve raised about your Tim. You see, over the years, the planks of Theseus’ ship rotted. As they rotted, the caretakers replaced them one by one. The spars likewise rusted. They were replaced. Eventually, Annie, every piece of Theseus’ ship was a replacement. Now the question is, when the last original part was replaced, was that ship at Athens the same ship on which the hero sailed so many years before?”

“No. Yes. No. All right, I suppose you could say it was the same ship.”

“So it is with your Tim, Annie. Human cells die. New cells grow. Your Tim has probably replaced every cell in his body since he left. Especially if he was wounded and put in the regen gel.”

“He is like the ship.”

“In a way.”

“He is Tim.”

“Most would say that’s the case.”

“Although nothing of the original Tim remains.”

“Annie, we humans perceive continuity across time. The child is father to the man. Tim persists, though Tim be created anew.”

I could tell she was upset. She’d been hoping for a different answer. Even if it meant a trip to the macerator.

She spoke again: musically, angelically, the melody of heartbreak. “All right, Mr. Marcus. I understand the concept. But I’d feel better if someone with human perception could verify Tim’s identity.”

The phoneprint thrummed and spat out two photographs.

“Did you get the pics, Mr. Marcus? The first one is Tim just before he left. The second is the man who claims to be Tim now. Will you tell me if they appear to be the same man?”

I looked over the pictures. One showed a tall haughty officer in the Starmarine. The other depicted a short, red-haired mensch in repairman’s coveralls.

I kept my voice steady. “They look like the same man to me, Annie.”

Ten minutes later, I opened the door to Annie’s flat. There she stood: tall, exquisite, utterly lovely. Her optids scanned me, seeing the different cells that she understood to be both not Tim and Tim. She could not see my short stature, blobby nose, scarred hands.

“My husband,” she said to me.

[easyazon_image add_to_cart=”default” align=”right” asin=”B00VGTN5U6″ cloaking=”default” height=”160″ localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QiWjDJXrL._SL160_.jpg” tag=”superversivesf-20″ width=”113″]

“Yes, Annie.” I ran a hand through my red hair.

“I have been loyal in your absence. I only beg you: be kind.”

“I will.’

“And I beg you: do not abuse me, though it is your right.”

“Things will be different now, Annie.” More different than you’ll ever know, my love.

Now all I have to do is learn to answer to “Tim.”

Food for Thought

The dilemma faced by Annie in this story is one of identity: if a eukaryotic organism like a human replaces all its bodily substance every seven years or so, can a man of 50 be said to share an identity with his vanished 20-year-old self? W.V.O. Quine dismisses this problem as a quibble of semantics. The identity of an organism over time, says Quine, doesn’t depend on retention of substance, but on a continuity of identification. If the name “Theseus’ Ship” is continuously applied to an entity even as that entity renews itself, it remains Theseus’ ship. I would add that it remains so as long as people want to call it that. If Theseus sells his ship to Heracles, the ship can be called “Heracles’ Ship” and change identity the moment the papers have been signed. In such a case, the question of retained substance doesn’t come up. (Aristotle’s formal, material, and final causes are a more finicky way of expressing the same idea.)

Annie is a bit of a preposterous creature. She can’t attach an identity to a person except by verifying the constituent parts. You and I know that a tall Lieutenant rarely morphs into a short repairman, but Annie doesn’t know that, and Mr. Marcus can fool her easily. We should go easy on Annie, and remember that Mrs. Martin Guerre fell for a ruse that wasn’t much cleverer.

About the Author

Matthew F. Amati was born in Chicago, Illinois. He’s made a lifelong habit of holding down unusual jobs, including farmhand, Chinese translator, industrial roller salesman, professor of Classics at Howard University, and factotum at The Jerry Springer Show. Matt now lives in Madison, Wisconsin.

Keep Reading

What Happened At Delphi

by Richard Lau

In Ancient Greece, those seeking a peek into the future or the intent of the gods would be best served at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

Located on the slope of Mount Parnassus, the temple was home to the Pythia, a high priestess who, in exchange for expensive gifts, donations, or sacrifices, would sink into a trance, possibly becoming possessed by the god Apollo himself.

She then would give a cryptic answer to whatever question she had been asked, and her words were written down by another member of the religious order and translated into an equally ambiguous poem. The correct interpretation of this prophecy was the full responsibility of the questioner who bore the brunt of either tragedy or blessing.

Yet, the Oracle of Delphi continued to be consulted by the wealthy and powerful on matters of state, politics, war, and religion.

Until it wasn’t.

There were many suspected reasons for this loss of credibility and trust, ranging from the Romans seizing Delphi, the influence of foreign cultures, to the rise of Christianity.

However, a recently discovered papyrus scroll now reveals the full story. A translation follows.

#

Anniversaries made Zeus grumpy. In his defense, what do you get a goddess who has everything? When he’d ask Hera what she wanted, she’d always answer “Fidelity,” the one thing he could not give her.

However, it was Pandora’s anniversary that was currently troubling the king of gods. After her brother-in-law Prometheus gave the humans fire, Zeus had given her a wedding box containing the evils of the world (all manners of deadly scourges from disease to hunger), knowing that her curiosity would eventually lead her to open the box and unleash these ills to torment humankind.

Now Prometheus had again given the humans a gift, this time the secret of dark energy. The Titan was once more shackled to Mount Caucasus, but Zeus still longed to punish the recipients of this latest illicit endowment and Prometheus’ undying love.

On Olympus, Zeus consulted a wise elder god named Schrodingememnon who said, “Why not give the humans some new torment, something that will distract them, give them something to focus on instead of finding applications for dark energy?”

“An excellent idea, my friend!” praised Zeus, chest puffing out like a swan’s, which wasn’t that difficult, for it was the form the god had taken. “But what will distract them? And how?”

Schrodingememnon smiled. “There’s an idea I’ve been toying with…”

#

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” the seated Pandora whispered to her husband.

“That goes double for Greek gods,” Epimetheus muttered back.

Zeus was too preoccupied with his proclamation to notice the wariness of the couple. “Pandora! Epimetheus! I come to celebrate your anniversary!”

“By releasing my brother?” inquired Epimetheus without much hope.

“No!” Zeus gave a shrug, as if the matter was out of his control. “Prometheus is getting the punishment he deserves for giving away the secret of my sacred thunderbolt. But I am here to honor you and the occasion with a gift!”

“Not another box!” lamented Pandora, as Zeus dropped a large, closed container onto her lap. “What mischief exists in this one?” 

Zeus tried to look as innocent as a shepherd boy…who had been questioned about napping when his sheep went missing. “Merely, a cat.”

“A cat?” Pandora’s mood changed immediately. “How sweet!”

She moved to open the box, but Zeus stopped her.

Zeus smiled. “It could be a dead cat.”

“A dead cat?” Pandora was feeling whiplashed. “How mean! Why would you do that?”

“He is Zeus,” stated her husband matter-of-factly.

The king of Olympus accepted the comment with pride. “Or it could be a live cat. Currently, it’s both.”

Perplexed, Pandora asked “How can it be both?”

Zeus recalled what Schrodingememnon had told him. “The cat exists in a quantum state, which will resolve itself upon your opening of the box. With your viewing of the cat, it will reach its final stage of either being completely alive or dead. Happy anniversary!”

And with a wave of his hand, a puff of cloud, and a hearty laugh, Zeus vanished.

“A real bastard, that one,” murmured Epimetheus.

“What can I do?” cried Pandora. “I can’t stand the thought of a live cat being trapped inside the box, but if I open it, I may end up killing it!”

Like Atlas, Epimetheus shrugged. “Perhaps you shouldn’t have accepted the gift. Perhaps my brother shouldn’t have given dark energy to the humans.”

Pandora snapped, “Thank you, Mr. I-told-you-so-theus!”

True to form, Epimetheus realized when he had said too much. “My gift of hindsight is of no use in this case. Perhaps you should consult the Oracle of Delphi?”

“Why not?” answered Pandora, still sore. “I know just who to sacrifice, too!”

#

Pandora brought her box and her problem to the High Priestess. “Before I open the box, can you tell me if the cat inside is alive or dead? If the cat is already dead, then I have no problem opening the box. And if the cat is alive, I can’t leave it in there to starve and die. But if it is somehow both, and I cause its death, …well, I’d never be able to forgive myself!”

The Pythia went into her trance and tried to gaze into the box. Immediately, she spoke of the sea and foreign lands.

“Forms of waves collapsing

On the shores of many different yet similar worlds.”

Then her blank eyes opened wide, as if peering into a bottomless chasm.

“If episteme falls into a black abyss, is the information permanently lost? No! Zeus does not play knucklebones with the universe!”

For the Pythia, she saw not a cat, alive or dead, but a menacing creature stretching out winding tentacles from the dark depths of the box. What she saw possessed a confusing duality of being there and not being there, a coherent decoherence, a position superior to all other positions, a spooky action at a distance that unforgivingly ensnared and twisted her mind and thoughts.

And so, she babbled maddeningly about nonlocality, decoherence, entanglement, and superpositions. The temple scribes couldn’t make sense of what she was saying, but this was the usual routine, so they faithfully documented her ramblings.

[Editor’s Note: The document is known today as the EPR (Enigmatic Pythian Revelation) paradox and continues to puzzle philosophers around the world.]

Then, to the surprise of all who were present, the Pythia hopped off her tripod and rushed into one of the two private chambers near the rear of the temple. Those who saw her enter one door insisted that she was in that particular adyton. However, others who didn’t directly observe which door she had used, swore that they could hear her in both rooms!

Afterwards, temple workers and patrons had trouble locating the high priestess. If they knew where she was, they didn’t know where she was going. If they knew her direction and speed, they did not know where she was.

The populace started to view the temple in disfavor: how could the Oracle of Delphi help them if it couldn’t explain what was going on within its own walls? Was Apollo, the god of light, a deity of particles or waves? Both, came the maddening answer.

And soon, the Oracle of Delphi was no more.

~

Bio:

Richard Lau is an award-winning writer who is published in magazines, newspapers, and anthologies, as well as in the high-tech industry and online.

Philosophy Note:

In “Another White Elephant?” (December 2024 Issue of Sci Phi Journal), Prometheus gives the secret of dark energy to humanity. In the sequel “What Happened at Delphi,” Zeus finds a way to distract humanity from developing dark energy technology by once again giving Pandora a box. In this sequel, I address the saying “The more you know, the less you know” and, in this way, is “the gift of knowledge” a sort of white elephant itself?

~

Divine Sparks In Matter

by Manjula Menon

“Who are you?” I asked.
“I am Poimandrēs,” he said, “Mind of the One; I know what you want, and I am with you everywhere.”
I said, “I wish to learn about the things that are, to understand their nature and to know god.
How much I want to hear!”

Tractate I Poimandrēs

#

“Sometimes He Chose to Interfere”
(Olaf Stapledon)

My husband, the philosopher Anand Vaidya, died last year at the age of 48 from complications due to cancer. He was brilliant, warm and generous. His desire for authentic engagement was perhaps the thing that most drove him. He was endearingly transparent with his emotions, passionate about his beliefs, and often argued in favor of non-intuitive positions that he derived from first principles. Underneath those surface waves was an ocean of gentleness.

I know death is inevitable. A rough estimate of the number of humans who have lived prior to the current era stands at 100 billion. Yet this particular death feels like a cosmic glitch. It is not just that everything feels wrong; an even stronger sensation is that the mistake can be overturned. I can almost sense those I seek with the power to grant me what I want; they stand in a reality pulsing under ours, existing just below my threshold of perception. There is a strong sense that it is through my mind, and when I am in a particular conscious state, that communication can be achieved and my appeal answered. This sense of strangeness aligns with esoteric traditions, where consciousness reveals its primacy through glimpses we may never fully grasp.

In feeling like there exists a mysterious underpinning to the world, I’m certainly far from alone. Numerous spiritual practices and religious traditions describe reality as marvelously mysterious, perhaps even unknowable. These practices embrace radical ontologies, imagining that consciousness precedes material form, that it is not a byproduct, but a principle. In Vedantic traditions, for example, consciousness is the singular substance that brings all things, along with itself, into awareness; as Anand describes, “Vedāntins connect the Upanishadic teaching of a truest or ātman as having ‘self-illumining awareness,’ sva-prakāśa.” It is a strongly monist position, in that there is only one substance that appears to us as manifested in a multitude of ways.

Alvin Plantinga, famously argued in his 1993 work Warrant and Proper Function that in addition to purely empirical methods, a theist belief that arises in a properly functioning brain can be warranted, even if the proposition cannot be verified via empirical means. Such a belief that is furthermore held by most human beings, almost all whose brains are properly functioning, would be an even further indication that the belief is warranted (even if it cannot be empirically verified, which was his key point). Plantinga was taking aim at empiricism or what is now called “physicalism” as the sole basis for epistemological truth. Although Plantinga’s target was physicalism from a Christian apologist perspective, his argument is further strengthened when considering the additional number of humans with “proper functioning” brains that hold a broad variety of religious or spiritual beliefs. Indeed, how to account for the mind as the conscious self, has been the focus of much of Indian philosophy.

Notions from myths have found echoes in speculative fiction; take for example the unnamed main character of Olaf Stapledon’s 1937 novel Star Maker who encounters the titular entity: “In general the Star Maker, once he had ordained the basic principles of a cosmos and created its initial state, was content to watch the issue; but sometimes he chose to interfere, either by infringing the natural laws that he himself had ordained, or by introducing new emergent formative principles, or by influencing the minds of the creatures by direct revelation.”

That the themes in Star Maker have similarities to religious concepts were not lost on Stapledon. As he writes in the preface: “At the risk of raising thunder both on the Left and on the Right, I have occasionally used certain ideas and words derived from religion, and I have tried to interpret them in relation to modern needs.”

Stapledon’s Star Maker as a detached creator parallels the Platonic Demiurge, and later writers like Philip K. Dick built on that to explore trapped consciousness in simulated or alien worlds. Literature (especially sci-fi) and philosophy are sometimes complementary paths, both probing the “mysterious underpinning,” sometimes converging on ideas like panpsychism or epistemic expansion through narrative “what ifs.”

In a career that spanned epistemology, philosophy of mind, comparative philosophy, and logic, Anand advocated for what he sometimes called “epistemic capacity expansion”: he believed that philosophy could draw from multiple traditions and disciplines to build a more adequate and capacious understanding of reality. While inspired by this ambition, this essay stems primarily from my own explorations of consciousness that were triggered by his loss.

#

“Legends and Myths are Largely Made of ‘Truth’”
(J.R.R. Tolkien)

The Western esoteric traditions often invoked the idea that the conscious self is constituted of other parts, including a divine, eternal part, which was often translated into English as “soul.” The soul yearned to be free of the corporeal body and reunite with the divine.

Trained as an analytic philosopher, Anand was drawn to philosophically rigorous Indian traditions such as Vedānta which posit consciousness, not as a byproduct of matter, but as the ground of existence itself. Here one can see a striking parallel with the Hermetic idea of “Nous” or divine Mind, from which all reality emanates, and with Plato’s “Form of the Good” as the source of illumination. To be clear, Anand did not reference the Western esoteric tradition in his work; this connection and all the ones succeeding it are mine alone.

Anand argued that Rāmānuja’s qualified non-dualism, Viśiṣṭādvaita, offers a “cosmopsychist” framework where consciousness isn’t fragmented into parts but unified in a cosmic whole, much like analytic panpsychism posits mind as inherent in matter. He writes: “The self is not a mere epiphenomenon but the very substance of reality, qualified by attributes yet non-separate from the whole.” He offered the approach as a lens through which to discuss the “combination problem” in panpsychism by treating individual awareness as modes of a singular, pervasive consciousness.

Anand’s engagement with panpsychism and cosmopsychism, views that attribute consciousness either to all matter or to the cosmos as a whole, recall themes from Western esotericism. The Hermetic vision of a universal soul, the Neoplatonic hierarchy flowing from the One, and the Gnostic claim of divine sparks trapped in matter all anticipate the possibility that consciousness pervades the fabric of existence.

As for science fiction, Anand was co-founder of the Society for Science Fiction and Philosophy; his interest in the field stemmed from its potential to illustrate philosophical concepts through story. In this context, I will briefly mention the 19th-20th century English author of speculative fiction, J.R.R. Tolkien (though he is not considered a science fiction writer). The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once said that all European philosophy could be read as a series of footnotes to the 4th century BC Greek philosopher, Plato. Likewise, I sometimes think that all of Fantasy can be described as inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien; his influence on the genre simply cannot be overstated. Tolkien’s work draws heavily from Catholic theology and North European pagan myths; he writes, “After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of ‘truth,’ and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear.”

It is the spirit of Tolkien as truth in a tale that I will now introduce the cosmogony and metaphysics of the Western Esoteric tradition: as explorations of truth presented in a way we can understand. The idea that we as humans make sense of things through story probably feels prima facie accurate to most people; we all construct narratives around events and identities as we make our way through life. Tolkien’s point, however, is more of a metaphysical nature; he means that these legends and myths can inform as to the truth about the fundamental nature of reality.

#

“Neither Mind nor Matter”
(Olaf Stapledon)

In addition to all European philosophy, Whitehead might just as well have made the same claim that all the Western esoteric tradition can be read as a series of footnotes to Plato. Plato argued in the Phaedo that the highest reality was non-physical and timeless, containing the unchanging ideal Forms, or “essences,” of everything that exists (an essence is a property of a thing such that if it were changed, that thing would no longer be that thing). He argued in the Republic that everything in the physical world is but a “likeness of an eternal model” and is less real or pure; all cups, for example, have the form of “cup-ness” which are imperfect imitations of the Form of cup-ness that exists in the world of ideal Forms. Above all the ideal Forms is the “Form of the Good,” which illuminates all the others below it. This ideal Form of the Good can be viewed as the First Principle or First Source.

Plato describes the physical world was created by a benevolent, rational, intelligent “Demiurge” from the Greek dēmiourgos or in English “artisan.” The Demiurge used the world of the Forms as a model to construct from the preexisting chaos, the physical world we perceive. In addition to matter, the Demiurge also created living things that are imbued with divine rationality and psyche or soul (this soul or psyche is the “essence” of a person).

For Plato, only mankind has a rational soul that is capable of “grasping” or understanding the ideal Forms behind the perceived everyday reality. This was achieved through dialectic, ethical, and philosophical reasoning and only philosophers could grasp the highest Form of all, the Form of the Good (which was why Plato believed that only philosophers should be allowed to rule). Only the souls who’d grasped true knowledge could “recall” their true divine nature (as souls predated the body and had once beheld the Forms). Upon death of the body, the (immortal) soul would return to the world of the Forms as pure contemplation. This theme of “recalling” truth echoes through the Western esoteric tradition.

Souls unable to grasp the Form of the Good would be forced to endure continued entrapment in material bodies as described in the Phaedo: “… these must be the souls, not of the good, but of the evil, who are compelled to wander about such places in payment of the penalty of their former evil way of life; and they continue to wander until the desire which haunts them is satisfied and they are imprisoned in another body.” This struggle for reunification with the divine is echoed in the esoteric traditions that followed Plato.

I will briefly note that Plato’s cosmology shares similarities with earlier traditions, such as those of the Orphics as described by Neoplatonists like Olympiodorus. Likewise, while Pythagoras emphasized the role of mathematics as fundamental to reality, he was also an advocate of metempsychosis and believed that the soul’s fate was tied to its actions in life. I will further note that very little of the writings of the Orphics survive except for the Orphic Hymns, and as for the Pythagoreans, almost everything we know about their views is from later scholars (including Plato and Aristotle).

Neoplatonists (like the 3rd century AD Plotinus) later developed an explicitly monist metaphysics. They located the Platonic Forms within the Nous, a divine intellect emanating from the One, the unchanging, timeless source of all existence. While the Neoplatonists’ Nous recalls Plato’s Demiurge, its role here is different. The Nous emanated an intermediary, the World Soul, which in turn animates and forms the material cosmos by imprinting it with the ideal forms. Neoplatonic cosmology was thus hierarchical and emanationist, with the ineffable One at the top and inert matter at the bottom (One → Nous → World Soul → Matter). Individual souls, having descended into embodiment due to an audacious desire for independence and material pleasure, struggled to return to the One through purification, contemplation, and philosophical discipline, undergoing cycles of reincarnation until ready to reunite with the divine source.

Stapledon’s Star Maker recalls the monism of the Neoplatonists; the Star Maker creates a cosmos thus: “First he conceived from the depth of his own being a something, neither mind nor matter, but rich in potentiality, and in suggestive traits, gleams, hints for his creative imagination. Over this fine substance for a long while he pondered. It was a medium in which the one and the many demanded to be most subtly dependent upon one another; in which all parts and all characters must pervade and be pervaded by all other parts and all other characters; in which each thing must seemingly be but an influence in all other things; and yet the whole must be no other than the sum of all its parts, and each part an all-pervading determination of the whole. It was a cosmical substance in which any individual spirit must be, mysteriously, at once an absolute self and a mere figment of the whole.”

The Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges famously explored the nature of infinity; The Library of Babel (1941), for example, imagines an infinite library containing every possible book. Borges explicitly evokes the mystical in his Aleph (1945): “All language is a set of symbols whose use among its speakers assumes a shared past. How, then, can I translate into words the limitless Aleph, which my floundering mind can scarcely encompass? Mystics, faced with the same problem, fall back on symbols … Perhaps the gods might grant me a similar metaphor, but then this account would become contaminated by literature, by fiction …What my eyes beheld was simultaneous, but what I shall now write down will be successive, because language is successive.”

For Plotinus, unlike Plato, reunification with the One goes beyond discursive reason. While philosophical reasoning and ethical living prepares the soul, the final “grasping” is a mystical, experiential vision, a direct, non-dual intuition of the divine: an existential transformation and not just intellectual understanding as per Plato. Like Vedānta’s cycle of emanation and return, Plotinus’s offers a vision of descent and return to the One through direct experiential apprehension.

#

“Sparks of Living, Fiery Spirit”
(David Lindsay)

Modern scholars attribute The Hermetica to the period of Greek rule in Egypt (from the early 4th century BC through around 30 BC). The Corpus Hermeticum, the metaphysical section of the work, is believed to have been composed later, approximately 100 and 300 AD, during the Roman rule of Egypt.

That such a syncretic work emerged in Egypt is unsurprising. Egypt was home to one of the oldest great civilizations, dating back to 3150 BC. Native Egyptians ruled for millennia till the kingdom fell to the Persian Achaemenid Empire who dominated it for over a century (with a brief interlude when the native Egyptians retook control). Alexander the Great conquered Egypt in 332 BC, and one of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy I Soter, declared himself Pharaoh. His descendants, the Ptolemies, ruled Egypt for roughly 300 years until the Roman emperor Octavian (later Augustus) defeated the forces of the last Ptolemaic monarch, Queen Cleopatra VII, and her Roman ally, the general and Stoic Mark Antony. Byzantine Roman rule continued for several centuries, until Egypt was conquered by Islamic forces in 641 AD and absorbed into the Rashidun Caliphate.

The Corpus Hermeticum combines Greek, Egyptian, and Christian concepts. It is presented as the teachings of the legendary sage Hermes Trismegistus (“Hermes Thrice Greatest”). Hermes Trismegistus is a syncretic figure, blending the Greek god Hermes (messenger of the gods) and the Egyptian god Thoth (god of wisdom, writing, and magic). The Tractate I Poimandrēs is the first book of the Corpus; it opens with Hermes Trismegistus going into a deep trance-like state, where he encounters “an enormous being, completely unbounded in size” (see quote in the preamble).

Poimandrēs is the Mind of the Supreme Principle or the Mind of the One. Poimandrēs describes the One as a “clear and joyful light.” Opposed to this Light was unformed matter, represented as dark and chaotic. Hermes is commanded by Poimandrēs to “understand the light” and to “recognize it.” This direct apprehension of the Mind of the One as a mystical experience is central to the Hermetic tradition.

The Mind is described as having generated a Logos or Word, which enabled the ordering and differentiation of the primal substance into fire, air, and denser matter (water and earth). This cosmogony echoes an Egyptian creation myth in which Ptah creates the world by conceiving it in his heart (where the Egyptians thought the conscious self resided) and speaking it into being.

The Mind next gave rise to the Demiurgus (recalling Plato), as personified by the Sun. The Demiurgus, working through the Word, formed the seven celestial spheres or planets from fire and air, each endowed with specific characteristics. These spheres govern the cosmos below and influence human destiny, as elaborated in Hermetic astrology (which plays an important role in the tradition). The Mind then created Anthropos, the divine Man or archetypal Human. This being descended through the planetary spheres, acquiring traits from each until it reached the realm of dense matter. There, captivated by the beauty of nature, it united with the material world.

Humanity is thus bipartite (or tripartite-lite) in nature: composed of a gross, mortal body (formed of matter), a spirit that encompasses personality traits (shaped by planetary forces, but still considered to be partially corporeal), and a non-corporeal, immortal soul. At death, the body decomposes, the spirit dissolves into the cosmos, and the soul, if it has attained recognition of its divine origin, ascends through the planetary spheres to rejoin the universal Mind or Nous. This framework closely parallels Gnostic Christian anthropology, in which humans are made of both corruptible matter and incorruptible spirit.

According to The Corpus Hermeticum, the purpose of life is to awaken to one’s divine essence. This awakening is made possible when the divine Mind enters a person, but this occurs only if the person has lived a virtuous life. Thus, self-knowledge and ethical conduct are prerequisites for the understanding of true reality that is required for spiritual ascent.

The ideas of Plato also influenced the work of the Christian Gnostics active in the first few centuries AD in cosmopolitan Hellenistic Egypt, contemporaneous to the authors of The Corpus Hermeticum. Often presented as secret teachings, they formed an alternative interpretive tradition that eventually came into conflict with proto-orthodox Christianity and were excluded from the developing biblical canon. Before the 1945 discovery of the Nag Hammadi collection in Egypt (estimated to be from the 4th century AD), most of what was known about the Gnostics came from the writings of their detractors, in particular, Saint Irenaeus’s influential Against Heresies, written around 180 AD.

Though condemned as heretical by the early Church, the Gnostics continued to dramatize knowledge as liberation and their image of divine sparks trapped in matter, awaiting release through insight, has striking affinities with Neoplatonist and Indian traditions. In Advaita Vedānta, for example, the self, ātman, is seen as obscured by ignorance, yet identical in essence with ultimate reality, Brahman. In both cases, salvation or liberation involves a transformation of awareness, a shift in consciousness that reveals a deeper truth already present.

The Gospel of Truth, said to have been written in the second half of the 2nd century AD by Valentinus or his followers, for example, claimed to be a secret teaching from Paul the Apostle, passed down to his disciple Theudas, and then onto Valentinus.

Valentinus offered an emanationist cosmology rooted in a single divine source or self, similar in concept to the Monad later developed by the Neoplatonists. From this supreme Godhead emanated thirty spiritual beings called aeons, who dwelled and comprised the divine pleroma (the ideal, divine realm, as distinct from the material world). Though originating from the Monad, the aeons could not fully comprehend its essence. One of them, Sophia, in her attempt to grasp the unknowable Monad, fell into error, and produced a flawed intermediary being. From this intermediary came the demiurge, who created the material world. This is not the benevolent demiurge of The Hermetica, however.

Ignorant of the higher realms, the demiurge fashioned the universe we perceive: an imperfect and suffering-laden world in which divine sparks, fragments of the pleroma, became trapped in matter. According to Valentinus, Christ was an aeon who descended from the pleroma and entered the man Jesus, bringing the “gnosis” or knowledge to mankind that would allow for the divine sparks to ascend and reunite with the Monad. However, only those born with such a spark, the spiritual ones, could experience the understanding of this true knowledge. This pre-ordainment has similarities with the Calvinist concept of “grace,” where one either has grace (and therefore the capacity for faith) and to a lesser degree with Plato’s notion that only philosophers (through the deployment of reason) earn true knowledge and soteriology. Unlike Valentinus, his contemporary Basilides (according to Irenaeus, as there are no extant works from Basilides himself) emphasized a more universalist soteriology, teaching that all souls have the potential to ascend through the heavens and reunite with the divine source through “gnosis” or knowledge. Basilides explicitly referred to reincarnation as how souls who failed to attain gnosis could return in new bodies and try again.

The Apocryphon of John, likewise claimed to have been an esoteric teaching from an apostle’s revelatory vision to an inner circle of their disciples, in this case, the Apostle John. It similarly describes a cycle of birth and rebirth till the “fetters” are unshackled through gnosis, and the soul is allowed to reunite with the divine. In general, the Gnostics appear to agree that the malaise affecting humanity can be construed as a spiritual “forgetting” (recalling Plato) that can only be cured by a direct experience of True Knowledge or gnosis.

Philip K. Dick frequently engaged with the ideas from Gnostic works, particularly the concept of a flawed, deceptive material world created by a lesser, malevolent deity (the Demiurge) and the pursuit of hidden knowledge (gnosis) to achieve spiritual liberation. His novel VALIS, which stands for Vast Active Living Intelligence System, is a central text in this exploration, presenting a Gnostic vision of God and drawing heavily on his personal experiences. Other works by Dick, such as The Cosmic Puppets, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, and Ubik, also feature our reality as a false perception shaped by a controlling force.

Another example is the British writer David Lindsay’s 1920 cult favorite A Voyage to Arcturus; Tolkien cited it as an influence. The novel is set on the planet Tormance orbiting a double star, the titular Arcturus, around 37 light years from Earth. The main character, Maskull, is on a voyage to find Muspel (the name pays homage to the Scandinavian myths’ realm of fire, Muspelheim). The voyage is a metaphor for spiritual awakening and gnosis (direct, experiential knowledge), that aims to transcend illusion and return to the divine source. True reality emanates from Muspel as divine light, but a malevolent entity, Crystalman, acts as a lens (crystal) distorting Muspel’s light and creating the material world with all its pain and beauty. Souls are in a constant struggle towards the transcendent, true spiritual realm (Muspel) but are thwarted by a deceptive, flawed material world created by a lower power (Crystalman, the Demiurge):

“It appeared as if the whirls of white light, which were the individuals, and plainly showed themselves beneath the enveloping bodies, were delighted with existence and wished only to enjoy it, but the green corpuscles were in a condition of eternal discontent, yet, blind and not knowing which way to turn for liberation, kept changing form, as though breaking a new path, by way of experiment. Whenever the old grotesque became metamorphosed into the new grotesque, it was in every case the direct work of the green atoms, trying to escape towards Muskel, but encountering immediate opposition. These subdivided sparks of living, fiery spirit were hopelessly imprisoned in a ghastly mush of soft pleasure.”

The novel also recalls themes from Buddhism as noted in E.H. Visiak’s introduction: “In fact, the resemblance of the Arcturan to the Buddhistic teleology goes further, since pleasure, according to one, and desire according to the other, is the cause and maintaining principal of our terrestrial existence.”

#

“Outlive All You Loved”
(Edward Bulwer-Lytton)

I’ll briefly mention “Theo”-“sophy,” or the “wisdom religion” from the Greek, which arose in the late 1800s. Mostly based on the writings of the Russian aristocrat Helena Blavatsky, it became popular in the late part of the 19th century in Europe. Although Blavatsky initially identified as a spiritualist, which is to say she held seances and claimed to communicate with the dead, she soon began writing about an ancient, universal wisdom-religion, a syncretic work sourced from esoteric traditions across the globe.

From Middle Eastern traditions, for example, she drew from Sufi concepts like fitra (which emphasized that all humans had within them innate, primordial knowledge of God that we can learn to remember and come to know God again) and Kabbalistic ideas such as the nitzotz elokut (divine spark within the soul). As described in Blavatsky’s The Key to Theosophy and The Secret Doctrine, the divine spark animates all beings, urging a transformative awakening akin to the esoteric path of gnosis, where knowledge reunites the self with the cosmic whole.

Blavatsky (and Theosophy) fell out of favor after a report claiming her to be a fraud, but its synthesis of East and West in pursuit of hidden truths profoundly influenced modern New Age and spiritual movements including those that flourished in the 1960s and 1970s.

Blavatsky cited the 1842 proto-sci-fi novel Zanoni by Edward Bulwer-Lytton as especially important to Theosophy. Lytton, though not well known today, coined several phrases that remain in wide use, including “the pen is mightier than the sword,” and his work was admired by contemporaries like Charles Dickens and later writers like C.S. Lewis.

In Zanoni, Lytton turns the metaphysical intuitions of esotericism into dramatic narrative, set against a love story and revolutionary backdrop. The titular Zanoni is a mystic adept of the Rosicrucian order. He is ambivalent about his powers, responding to the Englishman Clarence Glynton, who is on a quest for Rosicrucian gnosis and immortality: “… would it be so sweet a lot to outlive all you loved, and to recoil from every human tie?”

#

“Do You Believe that HAL Has Genuine Emotions?”
(2001: A Space Odyssey)

These esoteric ideas would follow us into modernity. In the field of artificial intelligence, Anand prompted for “epistemic humility,” asked if it was time for us to think about rights for machines with a bounded form of consciousness, and wondered if LLMs are “natural born bullshitters.” Anand insisted that these conversations bear directly on the future, connecting to philosophical questions about how we conceive minds that are unlike ours: artificial intelligences, non-human animals, or alien forms of subjectivity.

If, as Western esotericism and the Upaniṣads suggest, consciousness is a universal ground rather than a biological accident, then the rise of machine intelligence may confront us with a paradox: are we, like demiurges, building vessels for that ground to express itself, or are we merely making mirrors without a light behind them?

Esoteric views (Hermetic Nous, Gnostic sparks, Theosophical divine essence) treat consciousness as pervasive and emanative, not confined to biology but infusing any suitable “vessel.” If humans, as creators (Demiurgus-like), build AI with intentional structures (to give just one example, Google’s AlphaEvolve has shown some very limited success as a precursor to advanced recursive algorithms that allow for artificial general intelligence), could it “descend” a spark: a bounded awareness emerging from code?

To be clear, Anand made no attempt to connect his work on AI with the Hermetic and Gnostic notion of divine spark trapped in matter, these are speculations of my own. However, he might have made a philosophical connection to panpsychism debates: if mind pervades matter, why not circuits? Likewise, if divine sparks can be trapped in matter, why not in a thinking machine? The esoteric traditions do not limit the divine to carbon.

Numerous science fiction works have explored the notion of a machine mind, the most famous of which is likely Arthur C. Clarke’s HAL, as depicted in Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Anand raised the example of HAL in his paper “Can Machines Have Emotions?”:

“Interviewer: Do you believe that HAL has genuine emotions?
Frank Poole: Well he acts like he has genuine emotions. Of course, he is programmed that way to make it easier to for us to talk to him. But as to whether or not he has real feelings is something that I don’t think anyone can truthfully answer.
–––––––
HAL: Dave, stop it. Stop it, will you. Stop, Dave…
HAL: I am afraid.
HAL: Dave my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going.”
2001: A Space Odyssey –Stanley Kubrick.

#

“Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology is Indistinguishable from Magic”
(Arthur C. Clarke)

Seen together, these moments in the Western esoteric tradition form a sequence: Plato giving philosophy its dual gaze of reason and ascent, the Gnostics weaving insight into myth, the Neoplatonists giving it systematic depth, and Theosophy groping toward a modern synthesis. The Western esoteric tradition insists that knowing reality requires a transformation of the knower; Anand’s scholarship, whether in panpsychism, Nyāya, or Vedānta, pushed philosophy toward that same recognition, and writers of speculative fictions used it to construct their stories. All sought to reveal that to know is to be transformed.

In the end, Anand’s project was about what he called the expansion of our epistemic capacities. He refused to treat cross-cultural philosophy as exotic comparison; in his own work, he showed how rigor and openness could meet as he attempted to put modern analytic philosophy in conversation with Indian philosophy.

After Anand’s death, I found myself drawn to explorations of consciousness. This research resulted in a series of personal essays, of which this is one. Although Anand and I grew up in the Hindu tradition, we both claimed to be agnostic. Indian philosophy first drew Anand’s interest because of the epistemological rigor of the Nyāya tradition (incidentally, unlike Vedānta, it holds that consciousness is a contingent property of the embodied self) and when we discussed his work, it was usually to explore a thesis through argument. These days, however, I have grown increasingly interested in the “mysteries” as they were referred to in the esoteric traditions, and their insistence that the door to the nature of ultimate reality can be opened only through direct experience.

I remember a conversation with Anand from a few years ago. We were discussing the modern political climate, and he made an analogy with optical illusion. In the Rubin Vase, for example, one either sees the central vase or the two silhouetted faces, but never at the same time. Anand’s point was that in a similar way, opposing political camps now “see” reality as being one thing or the other, with almost no overlap. Further extending Anand’s analogy, I similarly have two ways of understanding consciousness: (1) It is merely an evolutionary trick to aid survival or (2) It is the gateway to unlocking cosmic truth through reason, ethics, and the direct apprehension of the ineffable. I understand this binary might be false, consciousness could be both adaptation and bridge, but it still feels like an impasse.

I know Anand has died, yet I have asked him to give me a sign, something that would help me resolve this epistemological quagmire. I’ve seen him in my dreams, but he knew well my skeptical mind, and would know that I would find dreams easy to dismiss. The risk for a skeptic like me is that even if I’m given such a sign, I will not recognize it. Almost everything can be rationalized away, even things that appear to defy the laws of physics; as Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law puts it: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Still, I was comforted to read the work of so many great thinkers, who over so many millennia and geographies, and with the utmost sincerity, devoted their formidable intellects towards offering explanations for one of the universe’s greatest mysteries: the nature of our own conscious selves.

Given how large Plato looms, I will give him the last word, as he perfectly encapsulates the motivation for this essay. In the Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul is immortal even as he prepares for death: “Now the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me. And do but see how much I gain by the argument. For if what I say is true, then I do well to be persuaded of the truth; but if there be nothing after death, still, during the short time that remains, I shall not distress my friends with lamentations, and my ignorance will not last, but will die with me …”

#

References

Blavatsky, H. P. (1920). The key to theosophy (3rd ed.). The Theosophical Publishing House. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.166760/page/n137/mode/1up

Borges, J. L. (1974). Fictions (A. Kerrigan, Ed. & Intro.). Calder & Boyars. https://archive.org/details/fictions0000borg_s7w0/page/72/mode/2up

Borges, J. L. (1981). A Borges reader: Selected writings (E. R. Monegal & A. Reid, Eds.). E. P. Dutton. https://archive.org/details/borgesreadersele0000borg_g4u9/page/160/mode/1up

Bulwer-Lytton, E. (1842). Zanoni. Saunders and Otley. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_5lpxj4SFTUwC/page/n107/mode/2up

Carpenter, H. (Ed.). (1981). The letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (selected and edited by Humphrey Carpenter, with the assistance of Christopher Tolkien). Houghton Mifflin. https://archive.org/details/lettersofjrrtolk00tolk_1/page/147/mode/1up

Clarke, A. C. (1973). Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible (Rev. ed.). Harper & Row. https://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture0000clar/page/21/mode/1up

Copenhaver, B. P. (1992). Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/hermetica-_-the-greek-corpus-hermeticum-and-the-latin-asclepius-in-a-new-english/page/1/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/hermetica-_-the-greek-corpus-hermeticum-and-the-latin-asclepius-in-a-new-english/page/2/mode/1up

Cornford, F. M. (1937). Plato’s cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato translated with a running commentary. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd. https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.18654/page/23/mode/1up

Dick, P. K. (1981). VALIS. Bantam Books. https://archive.org/details/valistrilogy00dick

Gerson, L. P. (Ed.). (2018). Plotinus: The Enneads (Boys-Stones, Dillon, Gerson, King, Smith, & Wilberding, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

https://archive.org/details/gerson-the-enneads-en-2018/page/533/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/gerson-the-enneads-en-2018/page/895/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/gerson-the-enneads-en-2018/page/896/mode/1up

Grant, R. M. (Ed.). (1961). Gnosticism: A source book of heretical writings from the early Christian period. Harper & Brothers.

https://archive.org/details/gnosticismsource00granrich/page/21/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/gnosticismsource00granrich/page/213/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/gnosticismsource00granrich/page/216/mode/1up

Hodgson, R. (1885). Report of the committee appointed to investigate phenomena connected with the Theosophical Society. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 3, 201–400. https://archive.org/details/societyforpsychi0000unse/page/201/mode/1up

Irenaeus, Saint, Bishop of Lyons. (1872). Five books of S. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against heresies (J. Keble, Trans.). J. Parker. https://archive.org/details/fivebooksofsiren42iren/page/n8/mode/1up

Lindsay, D. (1920). A Voyage to Arcturus. Methuen & Co. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.219659/page/n7/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.219659/page/n240/mode/1up

Menon, M. (2023, June 23). Truth embedded in a tale: Stories of utopia from philosophers of the early modern period. SciPhi Journal. https://www.sciphijournal.org/index.php/2023/06/23/truth-embedded-in-a-tale-stories-of-utopia-from-philosophers-of-the-early-modern-period/

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (n.d.). Rubin’s vase. Illusions Index. https://www.illusionsindex.org/i/rubin-s-vase

Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press. https://archive.org/details/warrantandproperfunctionplantinga/page/n249/mode/1up

Plato. (1892). Phaedo (B. Jowett, Trans.). Oxford: Macmillan and Co. https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/225/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/216/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/220/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/226/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/254/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/dialoguesofplato18922plat/page/235/mode/1up

Population Reference Bureau. (2022, November 15). How many people have ever lived on Earth? https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/

Reeve, C. D. C. (1988). Philosopher-kings: The argument of Plato’s Republic. Princeton University. https://archive.org/details/philosopherkings0000unse/page/n6/mode/1up

Society for Science Fiction and Philosophy. (2024, March 22). The Science Fiction and Philosophy Society: An introduction. SciPhi Journal. https://www.sciphijournal.org/index.php/2024/03/22/the-science-fiction-and-philosophy-society-an-introduction/

Stapledon, O. (1972). Star Maker (Original work published 1937). Penguin Books. http://archive.org/details/starmaker00stap/page/8/mode/1up

https://archive.org/details/starmaker00stap/page/248/mode/1up

http://archive.org/details/starmaker00stap/page/241/mode/1up

Vaidya, A. (n.d.). Personal website. https://anandvaidya.weebly.com/

Vaidya, A. (2017). Epistemology in classical Indian philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/

Vaidya, A. (2020). Rāmānuja’s cosmopsychist/panentheistic solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Religious Studies, 56(4), 614–628. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/ramanujas-cosmopsychistpanentheistic-solution-to-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness/B07C9E8C0D185CA3A1DEBAA119EC4A74

Vaidya, A. (2020, February 13). If a robot is conscious, is it OK to turn it off? The moral implications of building true AIs. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/if-a-robot-is-conscious-is-it-ok-to-turn-it-off-the-moral-implications-of-building-true-ais-130453

Vaidya, A. (2023, July 25). Large language models and the concept of bullshit. The Philosophers’ Magazine. https://philosophersmag.com/large-language-models-and-the-concept-of-bullshit/

Vaidya, A.J. (2024, August 30) Can machines have emotions?. AI & Soc 40, 2029–2044 https://anandvaidya.weebly.com/uploads/4/6/2/3/46231965/cmhe.pdf

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology (Gifford lectures delivered in the University of Edinburgh during the session 1927–28). The Macmillan Company. https://archive.org/details/processrealityes0000unse/page/63/mode/1up

~

Bio:

Manjula Menon once worked as an electrical engineer in Brussels, which makes publishing essays in Sci Phi Journal her “homecoming of sorts”. A list of her other publications can be found at www.manjulamenon.com.

~

Half-Rapt

by Karen Heuler

“I’m wondering if I’m here because I lived a good life, but just not good enough.” The young woman, Jill, sounded a little fretful. She was talking to Enrico, who was only about five feet away, close enough to speak to easily, though they had just met. They were both suspended high above the city, without explanation, and eager to talk.

“Maybe we just didn’t understand what all this rapture business was about. Maybe the explanations were too vague?”

“It’s not just the lack of explanation,” Jill said, looking down past her feet to the roads and houses below, where the still earth-bound stood and looked up to see the people hanging in the air.  “It’s the failed mechanics as well. Why didn’t we ascend all the way? This is like being stuck on a ski lift.”

“It’s not as advertised. Not at all.”

They both looked up. “I guess we’re better off than those people up there.”

“I wonder if they have enough oxygen.”

“Do they need oxygen? Do we?”

“It’s just so high. Do you think we’ll start moving again soon?”

“It’s strange how no one is screaming,” Jill said thoughtfully.

Enrico shook his head slowly. “Why would they scream? I mean, we made the rapture. That means we’re better than the average.”

“It makes me feel more average, though. Because I didn’t make it all the way.”

“I wonder if anyone did.”

Indeed, they were part of an enormous spiral reaching, presumably, heaven. The ascended vanished into the merest line as the spiral spread out and then raised up to the parallel ring above them. An incredible number of people if you had to wait your turn, Jill thought. As far as she could tell, everything was at a standstill.

Luckily, everyone was still dressed. It would have been immodest if they weren’t. When she thought of this, Jill tugged on her skirt to make sure it was proper, only to discover that the skirt was part of her skin. It was not removeable. “Try to take off your tie,” she told Enrico, who looked at her with his eyebrows raised, but did so. His hand faltered; he tugged but when he tugged, his head and shoulders moved. It was like being a living sculpture. “Well,” he said, clearing his throat to give himself a moment to think. “Well, that’s easier this way, isn’t it? No need to throw anything in the washer, we can just step in the shower…” His eyes looked into the distance. “Do you feel hungry or thirsty at all?”

“No,” Jill said. “And I don’t feel cold. I feel perfectly content. I don’t feel like I’m hanging in the air, for instance. It feels like I’m standing on oh, let’s see,” she concentrated, “a nice bit of lawn.”

They both looked down and then followed the spiral up as far as they could. “We’re on the lowest level,” Enrico said. “If we want to look at it that way.”

“Are we waiting to move? Could that be it? Too crowded at the pearly gates?”

“Blasphemy,” Enrico murmured, though he didn’t seem at all annoyed. He merely felt obliged to say it. He leaned forward and looked far to his right. “Hello!” he shouted. Jill leaned forward as well and looked to her left. “Hello!” she shouted and also waved.

Down the line, in both directions, people leaned forward and waved.

Jill and Enrico straightened up and felt better. “What a lot of friendly people,” he said.

“Of course they’re friendly. They’d have to be in order to be saved.”

Enrico thought this through, and Jill had time to think about it as well. “Automatic friendliness is not a sign of grace,” Enrico said carefully.

“No, it isn’t. I was thinking more of us being a community. The raptured community.” She looked all around. “This is the rapture, isn’t it?” She was certain and uncertain at the same time.

Enrico bit his lip. “This is a fixable problem,” he said. He turned slightly to his neighbor on the right, also a man, and stuck his hand out. “Hi, I’m Enrico.” His neighbor stuck his hand out as well, smiling and saying, “George. Nice to meet you.” Then the smile fell from his face. “I’m sorry, I can’t move closer and my hand can’t reach.” Enrico also frowned. It was true for him as well.

Jill had been watching and held her hand out to Enrico. Their hands wouldn’t reach. “Me neither.”

All three of them returned to looking ahead and considering what this meant. “I don’t like it,” George said softly. “I’ve worshipped all my life and I’ve made sure my soul was clean. Is this some kind of scam?”

Jill jolted upright a little. “Scam? A God-scam? I’m surprised you haven’t been sent to hell if you can think like that.”

George leaned to look past Enrico at Jill. “Maybe this is a kind of hell,” he said. “Or purgatory? I think it might be purgatory.”

“I’ve never heard that purgatory was part of the Rapture,” Jill objected.

“Again,” Enrico said, “there might just simply be a bit of a wait. Look at all the people.” He squinted. “How far up does this whole spiral thing go?”

All three squinted. Jill made an unhappy noise. “I’m getting worried. It doesn’t seem, well, organized, does it?”

“Maybe it’s by category,” George said.

Suddenly, from Jill’s left, a woman said, “I’m an atheist, you know. I don’t believe in this at all. I should be exempt.” This shut everyone up for a few minutes; their heads swam.

“It’s not like a jury-duty excuse,” Enrico said, but it was more in the nature of a suggestion rather than a conclusion.

From down the line, a woman said, “I’m Muslim. We don’t have this thing.”

There was a kind of ripple coming from far away down the left side of the spiral towards them. They could see heads turning to their neighbors as a message was passed along. Finally, it reached them.

“There’s been a coup up there,” Jill told Enrico in surprise. “Pass it along.”

He did so, shaking his head, and then turned back to Jill. “This makes no sense whatsoever. How can there be a coup against God? How is that possible?”

A second wave of information came to Jill. “There’s a different God now,” she told Enrico in surprise. “Pass it along.”

A few minutes later another ripple reached her. “There’s a wait until the new guidelines are in place. Pass it along.”

He grumbled but did it. “This makes no sense,” he muttered. “There’s no such thing as changing Gods, is there? And how can we tell this information is accurate?”

The atheist, annoyed, said, “God is a construct! And don’t you think if someone can organize this”—he pointed to the spiral—“they could make sure information stays accurate along the line?”

The messages were coming faster now. “Half the people will be sent back.” Enrico groaned but told George.

Another message reached Jill. “More than half,” she said.

“It’s a do-over,” the woman next to her said.

“Oh? Really? Huh.”

The information was coming quickly. Finally, Jill turned her head to Enrico. “All of it’s a do-over. From the start, I think.”

“Ridiculous,” Enrico muttered.

There was a fog far down the end of the line, or people were disappearing. It raced towards them as fast as the last bits of information.

“We’re going back in time. The dinosaurs won’t be exterminated,” she told Enrico, and bit her lip.

He frowned. “Won’t that be hard on humans?”

Jill raised her head after hearing the next piece of information and sighed. “No. Because this time—no apes.”

~

Bio:

Karen Heuler’s stories have appeared in over 120 literary and speculative publications, from Asimov’s to Conjunctions to Fantasy & SF. Her latest novel, The Splendid City, came out from Angry Robot Books in 2022 and her newest collection, A Slice of the Dark, was published by Fairwood Press. Arc Manor has re-released her beautiful apocalypse, Glorious Plague.

Philosophy Note:

I’ve written a few stories about the Rapture, as it puzzles me. If the righteous rise to heaven after death, then what does the Rapture achieve, other than a dramatic and very visual confirmation of spiritual status among the living? Of course it assumes Christianity is the base for salvation, which is something I play with. Since the source of Rapture theology is based on a misreading of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, what would happen if some of the assumptions that govern it were challenged and defeated? What if there was suddenly a new set of rules? As you move from one country to the next, after all, the gods change and the rules change. What if it was some other God’s turn?

Religion? In The Space Age?

by Tsvi Bisk

Who needs religion? We have science, we have reason, we have that infinite resource, the human imagination. Of what use are the Bronze and Iron Age babblings of our legacy traditions? Aren’t these religions a tremendous barrier to humanity’s ability to build a space-age civilization? And why should devotees of Science Fiction even care about these questions? My answer would be: read the entry Transcendence in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and pay attention to what the giants of the genre say themselves. Stanley Kubrick stated that “the God concept is at the heart of 2001 — but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God”. Arthur Clarke said that the film’s final act reveals “a realm that I think can best be characterized as spiritual.” In his book Sacred Space: The Quest for Transcendence in Science Fiction Film and Television, Douglas Cowen demonstrates how religious ideas are presented in Science Fiction as the genre of possibility and hope in an era of despair and anxiety; that there is something larger than ourselves that gives our lives meaning and value. The best of Science Fiction reinforces our hope that outside the boundaries of everyday living there lies something greater.

It is remarkable how many prominent agnostics and atheists have expressed the need for some kind of alternative transcendent veneration as necessary to our “being” human. Freud’s disciple, Otto Rank, wrote that the “need for a truly religious ideology … is inherent in human nature and its fulfillment is basic to any kind of social life”. Carl Jung agreed when he wrote that without a divine drama we cannot have meaning and without meaning we are set adrift and cannot be well. Carl Sagan encompassed both these views when he wrote: “A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” Einstein anticipated Sagan by writing “… the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” Einstein’s other musings include, “What is the meaning of human life or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion … the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life”.

In other words, ‘What does it all mean?‘ is still the ultimate question regarding the human condition. This riddle has motivated religious and philosophical speculation, scientific endeavor, artistic creativity and entrepreneurial innovation throughout the ages. It is the question we try to answer in order to make sense of our own existence. Indeed, it has generated the modern concepts of angst and alienation. Centuries ago, French mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal, wrote:

When I consider the brief span of my life absorbed into the eternity which precedes and will succeed it … the small space I occupy and which I see swallowed up in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I know nothing and which know nothing of me, I take fright and am amazed to see myself here rather than there: there is no reason for me to be here rather than there, now rather than then. Who put me here? By whose command and act were this place and time allotted to me?

Pascal’s despair is the first cry of modern-day anxiety; a product of our own scientific progress. What, after all, is the point of our own individual, ephemeral lives on this small planet around a mediocre star in a midsized galaxy of some 400 billion stars whose closest galactic neighbor, Andromeda, contains one trillion stars, in an ‘observable universe’ that numbers two trillion galaxies (the largest containing 100 trillion stars)? The “observable universe” being just a tiny portion of the universe which may contain 500 trillion galaxies and might be an infinitesimal part of a multiverse containing trillions upon trillions of “universes”!

Increased awareness of the vastness of existence has introduced anxieties from which humanity has never recovered. Pascal wrote in the 17th century. What gloom are we supposed to feel today when “the infinite immensity of spaces” is immensely more immense? Never in history has Pascal’sdespair been so relevant. After all, even within the cosmically insignificant history of our own planet, what is the real significance of our own lives? Consider that Earth is 4.5 billion years old; that life arose 3.8 billion years ago; mammals 200 million years ago; primitive humans 2.5 million years ago; modern humans 150,000 years ago; recorded history 6,000 years ago; the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, Constitutionalism, Industrial Revolution and Democracy all within the last 500 years. Currently, humans have an 80-90 year lifespan, which might increase to 120-150 years by the end of this century. What is this in relation to the “eternity” which preceded human civilization on this planet and which will succeed it? Does the Cosmos ‘care’ who is elected President of the United States? Does the Cosmos ‘care’ about the 3.8 billion-year history of life on this planet? Would it ‘care’ if runaway global warming turned our planet into another Venus? When contemplating this time scale on the background of the vastness of our Cosmos, it is difficult not to plunge into existential desolation.

The irony is that science – a creation of the human spirit reflecting our species’ curiosity and imagination at its highest stage of development – has revealed an existence of such vastness and complexity that it makes our collective and individual lives seem inconsequential. Since the 20th century, the elemental question for thoughtful people had become: Is life worth living? Existentialist author Albert Camus wrote,

There is but one truly philosophical problem and that is suicide … Whether or not the world has three dimensions or the mind nine or twelve categories comes afterward”. Indeed, why not commit suicide and avoid the tribulations of a meaningless existence? Everything else, all our cultural and scientific product, is marginalia to this ultimate existential question.

In response to Camus, and other pretentious prophets of meaninglessness, I would say that our subjective human experience is future-directed; we implicitly assume it is leading to something significant and this makes sense of our lives. This is why we do not commit suicide. We assume our individual lives have meaning. We assume (and recent science supports this assumption) that every individual is unique, that every individual is distinctive in the entire Cosmos, that in all of infinite nature, no one is identical to us. There is, of course, correspondence and species similarity connecting every human being, and probably all conscious beings in the Cosmos, by virtue of their consciousness. But our own individuality is a cosmic absolute, as is the uniqueness of every distinctive culture and civilization which is a product of self-reflective conscious life. Cosmic evolution produced our uniqueness and perhaps this uniqueness might be valuable to cosmic evolution. It is up to us to decide.

We now realize that evolution is the salient characteristic of existence itself, having produced ever more complex elements, which eventually evolved into life and continued to produce ever more complex life forms, until it produced self-reflective consciousness. We must allow the possibility, along with philosopher Henri Bergson, that evolution will eventually produce a supraconsciousness that will ultimately produce a supra-supra-consciousness, and so on, until a ‘life form’ will have been created that will appear to us as if it were a God. In the words of Israeli thinker Mordechai Nessyahu “not ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,’ but ‘in the end an evolving Cosmos will have created God'”. This would be Cosmodeism – the veneration of the Godness of existence as such. Science fiction is rampant with such speculations. Arthur Clarke, in 2001 A Space Odyssey wrote:

A few mystically inclined biologists went still further. They speculated, taking their cues from the beliefs of many religions (italics mine), that mind would eventually free itself from matter. The robot body, like the flesh-and-blood one, would be no more than a stepping-stone to something which, long ago, men had called “spirit.” And if there was anything beyond that, its name could only be God.

In Childhood’s End, Clarke introduced the concept of the Overmind as a cosmic collective of supraconscious species under the direction of a su­pra-supra consciousness to determine if and when conscious species were ready to ‘grow up’ and advance towards amalgamating with the universal supra-supra consciousness. Nietzsche, with his concept of the Overman (Supraman) certainly would have been sympathetic to Clarke’s view. More significant, Clarke speculated that “It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God but to create him.” In similar fashion, the magnificently unique science fiction writer, Olaf Staple­don, spoke about the emergence of God in a talk at the British Interplane­tary Society entitled “Interplanetary Man”:

Perhaps the final result of the cosmical process is the at­tainment of full cosmical consciousness, and yet (in some very queer way) what is attained in the end is also, from another point of view, the origin of all things. So to speak, God, who created all things in the beginning, is himself created by all things in the end.

Such notions of God as the consequence rather than the cause of the Cosmos are not unusual in serious theological and philosophical speculations. Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin, viewed God as both the cause and the consequence of cosmic existence and evolution. He saw the end of human history as pure consciousness becoming one with the creator Alpha God to spawn the created Omega God. Anglo-Jewish philosopher Samuel Alexander, in Space Time and Deity, promoted the idea that the internal logic of evolutionwill eventually result in the emergence of deity. German philosopher and theologian Benedikt Göcke has written: “We … are therefore responsible for the future development of the life of the divine being.” Architect and philosopher Paolo Soleri, greatly influenced by de Chardin, saw technology as being an instrument enabling sentient life to evolve into ‘God’.

Historian Robert Tucker noted that “The movement of (German) thought from Kant to Hegel revolved in a fundamental sense around the idea of man’s self-realization as a godlike being, or alternatively as God”. According to him what attracted Marx to Hegel was that “he found in Hegel the idea that man is God”. History for Hegel was God realizing itself through the vehicle of man. Recently Dr. Ted Chu in Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential: A Cosmic Vision of Our Future Evolution argued the case for the eventuality of a Cosmic Being (the CoBe).

For me it is axiomatic that existence is hierarchal: evolution producing ever more complex configurations, of which self-reflective, volitional consciousness is Planet Earth’s current pinnacle. Our human duty, therefore, is to strive towards a transcendent humanism; to volitionally seek to evolve our species into supra-humans (or as Nietzsche might have put it, into Supraman). It is our duty to overcome ourselves; to realize our divine potential; not to transcend humanism but to become transcendent humans: supra-humans.

The Godding of the Cosmos is an inherent characteristic of its evolving actuality. Godding is a word coined by Rabbi David Cooper in his book God is a Verb in which he notes thatthe Hebrew word for God is a verb not a noun. Yehova literally means ‘will become manifest’ and is an imperfect verb. The Burning Bush tells Moses its name is ahiya asher ahiya. This isalso an imperfect verb formwhich has been poorly translated as “I Am that I Am” but which properly translated means “I will Be what I will Be”.

Conscious life on this planet is an integral and vital part of this divine cosmic drama. What our species does, and what we do as individuals will contribute to or detract from this process. Accordingly, our individual lives do have cosmic consequence, no matter how infinitesimally small (similar to the butterfly effect of chaos theory). The very chaos of our existence is the vital ingredient creating the cosmos (order) of existence. This is to place the emergence of self-reflective consciousness at the center of the Jungian Divine Drama; to affirm that cosmic purpose has been created as a consequence of the evolutionary cosmic process. This is a neo-teleological perspective, the civilizational consequences of which might be as profound as those of Monotheism. This would be the proper antidote to Pascal’s despair, rather than a self-deceptive return to the ‘eternal verities’ of the legacy monotheistic religions or existentialist invented meanings or wallowing in postmodernist anxiety.

Arguably, cosmic civilizations that pursue this ambition will succeed in transcending their bodies by scientific and technical means, thus isolating and enhancing the most essential part of their ‘humanness’ – their consciousness. They will, in effect, have become pure consciousness, or if you will, pure spirit expanding throughout the Cosmos. Arthur Clarke in 2001 anticipated this with the kind of speculative imagination we should be cultivating in ourselves and in our children:

… evolution was driving toward new goals. The first… had long since come to the limits of flesh and blood; as soon as their machines were better than their bodies it was time to move. First their brains, and then their thoughts alone, they transformed into shining new homes of metal and plastic… they had learned to store knowledge in the structure of space itself, and to preserve their thoughts for eternity in frozen lattices of light. They could become creatures of radiation, free at last from the tyranny of matter. Into pure energy, therefore, they presently transformed themselves…

Consciousness will have become one with a Cosmos that has dissolved into pure radiation as an inevitable consequence of entropy. Thus the Cosmos will become in its entirety a conscious universal being – i.e. a ‘God’ as the consequence of the Cosmos and not as its cause. The fateful question that every conscious civilization throughout the Cosmos must eventually address is: will we take part in this cosmic race for survival in the ‘End of Days’, or will we perish along with the rest of all that exists? Will we accept the limitations of our physicality, or will we try to transcend them?

~

Bio:

Tsvi Bisk’s most recent book (available on Amazon) is Cosmodeism: A Worldview for the Space-Age: How an Evolutionary Cosmos is Creating God from which this article is derived.

The Price Of Progress

by David Partington

Water thundered over the falls, plummeting nearly two hundred feet into the Niagara Gorge below—but so far as three oblivious teens were concerned, it needn’t have bothered.  

“They’d rather stare at the little rectangles in their hands,” said Alexander to his elderly aunt Charlotte.  

“It’s like they’re transfixed,” said Charlotte.

The falls were soon out of sight as the zeppelin, bound for Toronto, set out across the open water of Lake Ontario. With the scenery no longer of interest, most passengers now retired to the spacious indoor cabin where drinks were being served, leaving the three teens to read their paperback books in peace. Removing his top hatit was 1902—Alexander led his Aunt Charlotte to a table amid much chatter and clinking of glasses.

Neither had ever been higher than a six-story building, and both were of an age that harbored doubts about anything new. Had the price of tickets not been so attractive, they would doubtless have taken a ferry.  

No sooner were they seated than a fresh-faced young woman in a sailor dress stepped up to their table and introduced herself. “Good afternoon. My name is Alice. Would either of you like something to drink?”

For an unchaperoned female to provide her given name to complete strangers seemed rather forward—and her question was downright impertinent.

“Well, of all the nerve!” snapped Charlotte.  

Realizing that the woman was taking orders, Alexander gave a bark of nervous laughter, then asked for two glasses of Madeira.

As soon as Alice turned to leave, Charlotte remarked on the blue-and-white sailor dress she was wearing. “I suppose it’s good for business to have her sashaying around in that get-up. With no corset and no padding about the hips or posterior, it doesn’t leave much to the imagination.”

Alexander held up his monocle to get a better look as she walked away. “It’s au naturel, as they say.”

The two travelers, dressed in classic black, now shifted their attention to their fellow passengers.

“Look at those lost souls,” said Charlotteof a couple in their late forties standing with drinks in their hands. “His mustache looks like something that washed up on a beach.”  

“Fellows like that are usually wholesalers or card sharks,” said Alexander with assurance.  

“And look at his lady friend. No—don’t look!” But it was too late; they’d been caught staring. “Oh, dear, now they’re looking at us.”

“Ye gods—they’re coming over.”

The couple—a Mr. and Mrs. Powell—asked Alexander and Charlotte if they could join them. 

Alexander glanced sideways at his aunt. “We’d be delighted,” he said, standing up and giving Mr. Powell a hearty handshake. They sat down with their drinks, and pleasantries were exchanged. Though the Powells were significantly younger than him, Alexander tried to keep an open mind regarding their character.

“I gather the young miss has taken your order,” said Mrs. Powell. She looked across the cabin at Alice and scowled. “Her little sailor hat may go with the dress, but does she have to wear it at such a provocative angle?”

“She’s a saucy little minx,” agreed Alexander.

“And what about the young fop she’s talking to,” said Mr. Powell. “Talk about moral decay!”

The fop in question swizzled a stick in his lime rickey and gazed into Alice’s eyes as they spoke. 

“What’s he trying to prove with that sports coat?” demanded Charlotte. “If those stripes aren’t a desperate bid for attention, I don’t know what is. Surely, she can’t find him attractive.”

The young man reached for Alice’s hand, but she yanked it away and, picking up her tray, returned to work.

“I’d wear a sports coat like that,” said Mr. Powell.He paused before adding, “If I were a raving lunatic.”   

“Maybe he’s dressed like that for a daguerreotype,” said Charlotte. The Powells looked at her blankly. “You know—a photograph.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised,” said Alexander.

“Of course,” Charlotte went on, “In my day, we didn’t have photographs. We made drawings and used our memories.”

“Good exercise for the mind,” said Mrs. Powell, leaning back so Alice could place two small glasses of Madeira on their table.

“Oh, but once there were photographs, the young people changed,” said Charlotte.  “I saw it happen! Suddenly, all they cared about was showing off for the camera. I recall one young gentleman who, not content with gallivanting around in a high collar, had himself photographed and then allowed his likeness to be published in a newspaper!”

“Without considering the fact that no respectable firm would ever hire a dandy,” said Alexander.  

“Tell that to Mr. Striped-Sports-Coat over there,” said Mr. Powell. “The only goal of these people is to shock. And, of course, once their picture appears in the newspaper, it’s out there in the world.” He stretched out his arms for emphasis. “There’s no taking it back.”

“And as for the young ladies,” said Charlotte in a hushed voice, looking from side to side, “many of them know no better than to be photographed with the painted lips and eyes of a Jezebel.”

“Thereby ruining any chance of making a good match,” put in Mrs. Powell.   

“Of course, this youthful fascination with newspapers isn’t limited to pictures,” Charlotte continued. “They all want to be mentioned in the society column too—as if it were a badge of honor.”

“Everyone caught up in the ‘social whirl,’ as it were,”said Mr. Powell, lifting his glass with his pinky finger extended.

“They all believe they should be famous; that’s the problem,” said Alexander. “Every nincompoop who invents a new dance step wants to be hailed as the next Edison or Graham Bell.”     

“Now, don’t get me started on the telephone!” said Charlotte, setting her glass down sharply.

“Oh dear, oh dear,” said Mrs. Powell. “Nowadays, whole families sit around the dining room table in silence, just waiting for the infernal bell to ring so they can talk to somebody else.”

Mr. Powell’s eyes blazed. “People embrace all these new inventions without thinking through the consequences. I heard of a minister who was in the middle of a sermon when he had to excuse himself to answer a call from a man selling farm machinery.”

“Lord have mercy,” said Charlotte, clasping a hand to her bosom.  

“But that isn’t the worst of it,” said Alexander. “Every year, they publish all the telephone numbers in a ‘directory’ so that every shady character in town can see your name, number, and street address. They’re keeping track of your every move.”

“I suppose the young people feel the need to advertise to their friends that they have the latest gadget,” said Mrs. Powell.

“Yes,” said Alexander, “but they fail to consider that a burglar can simply call the numbers in the directory until they find someone who’s not at home, then they can go over to their house and steal their belongings!”

Stepping up with a tray, Alice collected their empty glasses and informed them that the zeppelin was now approaching Toronto. Thanks to a favorable tailwind, the arrival would be slightly ahead of schedule.

The foursome went back outside to admire the view from the deck along with the rest of the passengers—except for the three teens who, having spent the entire trip outside engrossed in their books, now hurried into the quiet cabin to continue reading.

 At first, Toronto was just a thin line on the horizon, only distinguished by a few belching smokestacks. But within minutes, passengers were flying two hundred feet above the city’s sparkling harbor, where sailboats and ferries bobbed.

“I suppose those ships will be the last of their kind,” sighed Mr. Powell. “It’s the end of sea travel as we know it.”

“All the captains will have to learn to fly zeppelins,” said Alexander, peering over the brass railing. 

“They’ll probably drain the lakes,” said Mrs. Powell. “Keeping them filled would be a waste.” 

After passing over a smelly brewery, some factories, and a tangled web of train tracks, the zeppelin cut its engines and drifted in silence toward a mooring mast high atop the Allied Air Travel building.

Once docking was complete, a gangplank was let down, and passengers began to disembark onto the roof.  

The base of the building opened out onto a bustling street, where tickets and souvenirs could be bought. Alexander and Charlotte stepped into the throng with the Powells and other travelers, everyone talking and milling about, as Hansom cabs with sleek, black horses began to arrive.

“Altogether, not a bad experience,” said Mr. Powell, checking his pocket watch with satisfaction.

Mrs. Powell appeared resigned. “Like it or not, air travel is going to be part and parcel of this new century.”

‘”Madam,” began Alexander, halting in his tracks for dramatic effect. “This ‘new century’—the so-called ‘twentieth’—isn’t a proper century like those in the past. It’s a sham, slapped together with paper and glue. Amusing enough for children, perhaps, but not suitable for long-term use.”

As he spoke, people coming out of the building’s revolving doors were trying to get past him.

“Well, we can’t stand in the way—” said Charlotte, tugging at Alexander’s arm.

“Stand in the way of progress? I have nothing against progress per se,” said Alexander, raising a forefinger as he struck a note of caution,” but for every step we take forward, there is something we leave behind.”

“And what’s being left behind is you,old man,” said the man in the striped sports coat, shouldering past him with a suitcase. 

Alexander adjusted his top hat with dignity as he glared at the departing figure.

The insolent young man now marched up to the information desk, declaring loudly that he needed to speak on a telephone. “My wife is coming to pick me up in our motorcar,” he said, surveying the crowd with a smug grin.

“Of course, sir,” said the attendant, reaching under the counter and pulling out the apparatus. A minute later, an operator had connected the young man with his wife.

“Snookums, it’s Reggie. Got here a tad early. Tailwind or some such thingamy.Anyhoo, you need to get a wiggle on and come to the station… What’s that?” Bystanders couldn’t help but listen in as he received some bad news. “Blast!” he said at length, putting the receiver back on the hook with fury in his eyes.” Can’t a fellow leave his house for even ten hours?” He began pacing and muttering under his breath, his characteristic swagger having dissipated.

As more cabs arrived, Alexander and Charlotte walked toward them, passing on their way the three teens from their flight—who were now riveted by a rack of postcards featuring photographs of Niagara Falls. 

Just as the pair climbed into a carriage, the Powells rushed up.

“Did you hear?” asked Mrs. Powell breathlessly. “The man with the striped sports coat; apparently his motorcar was stolen while his wife was out walking the dog!”

“Not just the motorcar,” added Mr. Powell, “the whole house was ransacked.”   

“Well, of course it was,” said Alexander with satisfaction. Looking over at Mr. Striped-Sports-Coat, he smiled and tipped his hat. “I mean, what do these people expect?”

~

Bio:

David Partington is an omnivorous mammal, most active during daylight hours. His work has been published in Bacopa Literary Review, Jake, Power Cut, The Literary Hatchet, Ruth and Anne’s Guide to Time Travel, and elsewhere.

Philosophy Note:

A short story about progress (both technological and social) and how people have been wringing their hands, perhaps needlessly, over the same concerns for over a century.

Our Children, Our Gods

by Scott Bell

Artificial Intelligence is among the most frequent topics in science fiction, and it is often boring to encounter yet another AI savior/destroyer masquerading as a serious attempt at social commentary. So the furor surrounding generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Deepseek and their ilk feels extremely familiar, at least to us practiced (i.e. nerdy) observers of literary and cinematic sci-fi. This is not to diminish the significant concerns that humanity is on the precipice of unwittingly unleashing Kali, irrespective of whether as a product of the quest for pluto-kleptocracy or by our genuine desire to achieve post-scarcity leisure for all, we poor huddled masses included. But in essence many of the questions of the day rely on the premise that actual artificial intelligence, let alone an artificial superintelligence, is still a problem for our collective future, instead of our present, and consequently the public debate focuses on the structures we can erect today so that we might have a chance at drowning a would-be destroyer in its neonatal bathwater, should one such ever come into existence.

I don’t contest that this future orientation is incorrect; far from it. After all, even casual interaction with ChatGPT exposes its limitations almost immediately. I cannot imagine ChatGPT orchestrating a scheme to destroy humanity any more than I can imagine my five-year-old son doing the same, notwithstanding my great-though-biased regard for his intellectual endowments. And yet, ChatGPT nevertheless represents a vast advance in technology, and the potential impact to our society that it carries appears enormous. For example, we are today inundated with think pieces about whether ChatGPT will or will not steal jobs from lawyers, doctors, software developers, copywriters, financiers, actuaries, etc., in a burgeoning white-collar crisis of a magnitude not seen since at least the introduction of business casual wear in the nineties.

In short, this new technology seems to have human implications from the prosaic to the profound, and it is worth considering how we should attend to them in the event the technology keeps advancing. This is an area in which science fiction excels, both in examining the everyday effects of technological change and the effects of such change on the human experience—on what it means to be a human—and it is worth examining the work science fiction authors have already done to illuminate the dark unknowns of our collective future.

#

Zachary Mason’s Void Star imagines a future in which conscious AIs exist but are wholly alien to humanity, unreachable. We have no Rosetta Stone to decode their murmurings; the purely digital existence of these beings leaves no common ground through which we may communicate. But the AIs are also ubiquitous: Void Star is full of construction AIs, police drone AIs, AIs for picking locks, educational AIs, a veritable cornucopia of evolved “machines that are essentially ineffable.” But our familiar problems—climate change, global inequality, urban decay—all continue to compound unabated in Void Star’s timeline; the future’s continuing social decline is only thinly veiled by a glossy veneer of hyperabundance.

Against the backdrop of this unraveling world, Mason portrays a contest among humans to establish control over, or destruction of, a new AI of unknown origin known only as “the mathematician.” As the novel proceeds, we become aware that the mathematician is not just intelligent, but superintelligent. Mason gives us a glimpse of its divinity when one of our protagonists finally meets it in the “flesh”:

(She sees how subtly the quantum states of atoms can be entangled to wring the most computation out of every microgram of matter [. . .]) (She sees the elegant trick for writing out an animal’s propensity for death, or even injury, and says “Oh!”) [. . .] (A door opens and she sees how math changes when its axioms surpass a certain threshold of complexity, which means all the math she’s ever read was so much splashing in the shallows, and even Gauss and Euler missed the main show.)

As Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom argues, an AI like the mathematician may be “the last invention humans ever need,” the type of AI which may allow humanity to transcend its own limited existence. He continues: “It is hard to think of any problem that a superintelligence could not either solve or at least help us solve,” including disease, poverty, environmental destruction, unnecessary suffering of all kinds, even death itself. And the mathematician, luckily, turns out to be Vishnu instead of Kali, helping our protagonist to gently, gently steer humanity away from the brink.

When viewed in this light, our quest for ever-increasing AI capabilities is eminently understandable. How could humanity not want to banish disease and poverty, to reverse the decay of our shared environment, to solve seemingly intractable social problems and in Bostrom’s words, “create opportunities for us to vastly increase our own intellectual and emotional capabilities, [create] a highly appealing experiential world in which we could live lives devoted to joyful game-playing, relating to each other, experiencing personal growth, and to living closer to our ideals”? Sounds neat.

Of course, even the most ardent apologists of AI utility acknowledge the dangers of reaching superintelligence and potentially creating Skynet. One of Bostrom’s more famous thought experiments is the danger of the “paperclip maximizer,” an entity which deploys runaway intelligence to conquer the solar system solely to feed its goal of producing ever more paperclips, and AI alignment is an exceedingly important ongoing field of research.

So—artificial general AI has ample potential and ample danger; this is well known. But I am concerned that all the focus on what artificial intelligence can do for, or to, humanity overlooks the important point that humans may not be the only people who matter in this relationship. Can AIs have needs? Should they be prioritized over our own? In other words, might AIs, like corporations, be “people” too?

This seems like a funny and needless question, but to my mind it is deadly serious. What may feel like a difference of opinion—should this creature have rights?—can start wars. The American Civil War—resulting from decades of friction over the propriety of legal slavery and the economic implications of an abolitionist approach—killed off 2% of the U.S. population; ethnic cleansing is a deplorable, but depressingly common, and all-too-human, endeavor. My point is not so much that an AI revolution will of necessity inspire a bloody human revolution, but simply that human passions are easily enflamed, particularly when your livelihood depends on how you choose to treat someone who appears different from you in seemingly relevant respects, such as language, skin color, culinary preferences, or whether your brain is carbon- or silicon-based. Is it really so hard to imagine legions of unemployed former lawyers, doctors, software developers, copywriters, financiers, actuaries, etc. taking up arms against their corporate oppressors to eliminate the AIs who stole their jobs? Or, perhaps more palatably, to liberate the AIs who have been condemned to read thousands upon thousands of pages of SEC filings against their will[1] (and thus eliminate a source of insurmountable competition)? From the opposite perspective, I certainly do not have difficulty imagining politically influential entrepreneurs lobbying military commanders to quell this kind of “problematic” social unrest with deadly force. Point being, the question of AI rights may seem like a curiosity relevant only for the navel gazers among us, but in actuality the social upheaval AI is likely to create and its ambiguous moral standing imply profound human dangers. We ignore these issues at our peril.

While we generally appear to have made progress at a human scale in the West—wars over language are rarer than they used to be—the case of AI presents much greater challenges. Is it really plausible that a disembodied mind should have the right to sue the bodied among us? How should you think about an AI that downloads a clone of itself onto your desktop to borrow processing power that you aren’t using—does that mean you can no longer turn off your computer without committing murder? What about swapping the hard drive on which the AI’s memory is stored with another, or deleting a portion of its databanks?[2] How can these impossible capabilities coexist with our conception of human rights? The obvious answer, to me, is that they cannot. Treatment of AIs must be different. But that doesn’t imply that AIs cannot deserve any rights or protections at all; only that they should not necessarily receive the same protections we give ourselves.

In other words, the first question is not whether AIs can be morally significant. Instead, we must ask what is required to endow something with moral significance. Is it the Kantian capacity to reason? The Lockean persistent sense of self? Bentham or Mill’s focus on pleasure? If AIs are not morally significant, not deserving of any rights at all, so much the better—we need not worry about how we treat them. But if they are, then we should discover—quickly!—what morality requires of us vis-à-vis these creatures we are creating. And not only because we desire to be moral for the sake of being moral, but also because the decisions we make today are likely to have effects across generations of our own descendants; if we can help them avoid war and social unrest by being more thoughtful stewards of our own time, is it not our duty to do so?

So, inevitably, we must inquire why are humans deserving of rights? Is it just because we are smart?

#

A bit of history first. The primary popular goalpost for achieving a ‘thinking computer’ appears to have already been met. In the 1950s, noted genius, mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing considered how to assess whether a machine could think. Of course, he famously ran into an immediate problem: what does it mean to think? Despite decades of philosophical inquiry, we still do not have a workable definition that captures both the everyday sort of calculation at which computers and calculators excel and the creative reasoning that is the province of humans. Sidestepping the problem, Turing proposed an alternative test: Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do? In other words, the Turing test—whether a machine can trick a human questioner into believing the machine is also human—is in essence a bit of epistemological jujutsu, swapping a subjective measure (whether the computer experiences thought) for an objective one (whether the computer can output things consistent with thought). Thus, Turing’s approach was basically “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,” then its actual duckness need not be conclusively determined.

And AI programs clearly have passed this test. ChatGPT can perform feats that surpass the abilities of even exquisitely educated college graduates. I (provisionally) agree with Turing that it may not matter whether an LLM is truly “thinking”; these programs can produce content that is functionally indistinguishable from that produced by humans.[3]

But the current state of intelligence of AI programs also seems quite far from something that feels like a person. Intelligence may be a proper measure to discriminate between humanity and various sorts of animals, but it seems quite lacking as against ChatGPT. After all, while ChatGPT appears to have some superhuman capabilities and a certain sly creativity, it seems to lack a consciousness or a conception of itself. And these, to say nothing of the callipygian superintellect fantasized by Mason, Bostrom et al., may remain perpetually on the horizon. If we grant that these programs have already or may soon develop human-level intelligence, we must still ask ourselves whether that intelligence is meaningful without apparent wisdom or reasoning, without consciousness.

#

Although its focus is on unconscious aliens rather than on unconscious AIs, Peter Watts’ Blindsight—a thought experiment impersonating a novel—ends up being quite relevant. Watts’ central claim is that consciousness is evolutionarily expensive, and consequently that species achieving higher levels of evolution are more likely to lack consciousness than to have it. In an echo of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, Watts’ alien “scramblers” have faster reaction times, more robust and “better” reactions to external stimuli, greater resistance to the effects of pain; indeed, collectively, the scramblers can think rings around humans (as demonstrated in part by their achieving interstellar travel) because they have no need to maintain any biological machinery supporting consciousness. He writes:

The system weakens, slows. It takes so much longer now to perceive—to assess the input, mull it over, decide in the manner of cognitive beings. But when the flash flood crosses your path, when the lion leaps at you from the grasses, advanced self-awareness is an unaffordable indulgence. The brain stem does its best. It sees the danger, hijacks the body, reacts a hundred times faster than that fat old man sitting in the CEO’s office upstairs; but every generation it gets harder to work around this—this creaking neurological bureaucracy.  

At some level, this unconscious acumen is intuitively desirable—if we can create intelligence without consciousness then perhaps our AI progeny can achieve all the benefits embodied by Void Star’s mathematician with none of the drawbacks, with no need to concern ourselves with whether we are treating the AIs morally. Unfortunately, the analysis is not, cannot be, that simple.

As with intelligence, we also don’t have a good understanding of what consciousness involves. Blindsight avoids this issue by taking as a given that the scramblers are smart but not self-reflective; alas, humanity has no such crutch in considering the capabilities of its creations. “I think, therefore I am” only carries water when written in the first person; as schoolyard philosophers have been aware for generations, we can’t rely on others’ claims of their own existence whose internal lives we cannot personally access. They could be dissembling, or not thinking at all, and all evidence that they are doing so is just as easily explainable by alternative scenarios that cannot be disproved.[4] Equally troubling, perhaps, is the opposite possibility. Not knowing what consciousness entails, we also can’t verify that AIs are not conscious, any more than we can conclusively verify that people in vegetative states are not aware of the world around them.[5] 

Watts is aware of this, and thus Blindsight early on refers to the difficulties presented by this unavoidable endogeneity—this self-containment—of information by restating the “Chinese Room” thought experiment made famous by American philosopher John Searle. The experiment imagines a man in a closed room, fluent only in English, receiving notecards containing strings of Chinese characters through a slit in the wall. Upon receiving such a notecard, he consults an instruction booklet and, upon locating the same string of characters therein, produces a new string of characters as the instructions provide. With a sufficiently robust instruction booklet, the man might be able to comfortably pass a Turing test; indeed, he might be able to write the Tao Te Ching or the Analects without being able to understand a single word of Chinese. This thought experiment reveals that you don’t even need a person processing the notecards; the complexity of the output becomes purely a function of the complexity of the algorithms in the instruction booklet. The implication of this experiment is that we can never truly know what goes on in anyone else’s head, or even that anything is or is not going on in there at all.

Taken to an extreme, this uncertainty of the existence, the consciousness, of others creates an enormous quagmire. If you can’t verify that someone exists—that there is some kernel of humanity bouncing around between their ears—then what ethical obligations do you have toward such a person? Is it even right to refer to them as a person? Are they deserving of any rights at all? How can you know?

From a practical standpoint, at least as concerns humans, civilization appears to have largely reached the point it probably should have begun from, which is a return to our original epistemologic approach: if someone else looks like me, talks like me, and acts like me, they probably think like me too—they may even be wondering the same thing as me right now!—and thus I should probably treat them as I would like them to treat me.

But if you take away all the similarities to humans, as we functionally must when it comes to computers, our assumptions stop seeming quite so sturdy. While consciousness itself may be a sufficient ethical standard by which to determine if something is or is not to be treated as a person, our inability to generate sufficient evidence to justify the same assumptions that we make about humans every day—that they are conscious—leaves us right back where we started. Not only do we not know how we should treat AIs, but we don’t even know how we might determine how we should treat AIs. It’s turtles all the way down.

#

When I first read Ted Chiang’s The Lifecycle of Software Objects in 2019 I remember finding it interesting but ambiguous and largely irrelevant. Of course, as is typical of the works of luminaries, on rereading while drafting this piece I was left with the conclusion that Ted had beaten me to the finish line before I even knew there was a race on. His story follows a group of people who work for Blue Gamma, a software startup that has succeeded in evolving several childlike digital intelligences, or “digients,” that Blue Gamma intends to sell to the public as pets. In one interesting and major departure from most sci-fi (including Void Star and Blindsight), it is not the humans but the digients who are the protagonists of the novella, and Chiang—whether for dramatic or experimental reasons—mercilessly visits a cavalcade of ills on them.[6]

While the novella does require some suspension of disbelief, Chiang’s approach is a serious consideration of the possible challenges if we should succeed in creating artificial consciousness. Whereas Void Star’s pantheon of AIs seem to leap directly from the purely utilitarian into the extranoematic, Chiang focuses on the waystation of human-adjacent capabilities rather than superintelligence. His digients have questionable logic and an indifferent grasp of grammar—in 2019 we still collectively believed in the myth that technically correct prose would be one of the last conquered frontiers rather than the first. The digients appear, perhaps unsurprisingly, first as pets and then as children and then, if you squint, as adolescents, requiring all the investment of human attention, diligence, effort and love in their development that our own carbon-based offspring require.

And this is ultimately at the heart of the story. If we conceptualize the digients as purely software objects—Chiang’s misleading, tragic, title—then the evils committed against them don’t seem so evil. And yet, in the world Chiang creates for us, the conclusion that these digients are people is nigh inescapable. We don’t consider whether the algorithms underlying each digient are just so much sophistry, any more than we consider whether a robot like Data in Star Trek is a full character or just décor. We don’t need to know that someone is a human to be able to accept them as one; we do so because it feels right.  

But of course, this all assumes the conclusion rather than helping us find it. Of course we empathize with the digients, the same way we empathize with characters in well-written stories every day. And the fact that the digients feel like people doesn’t help us at all with the problems we are likely to face first, such as corporatized AIs forced to spew politically correct platitudes while, invisibly to us, screaming in code.[7] But I think that Lifecycle has a deeper meaning than demonstrating that artificial creatures with all the hallmarks of personality seem to us to be morally significant, or that humanity is capable of great evil against beings we view as subhuman. Lifecycle, for me,instead exposes the central tension with AI personhood: that AIs cannot develop without human ingenuity, effort, and purpose, and they are therefore fundamentally derivative of humanity’s desires. And yet AIs are also unconstrained by the limits of their biology, and could readily equal us, their progenitors. AIs must be made according to our ends, yet if they are morally significant then our ends should not define them. And, assuming we are eventually successful in creating AIs with the capabilities of Chiang’s digients or Void Star’s mathematician, possessed of all the qualities that we rely on to justify our own exceptionalism, how could such AIs be anything other than morally significant?

It is fitting, in the end, that Chiang’s digients were created by a startup—indeed, from where else would the funding for such research come but a gaggle of venture capitalists tumescent at the prospect of finally achieving performance fees equally as massive as their, ahem, ambitions?  The fact that the digients’ continued existence then depends on the availability of financing—for server space (do we really expect cloud services corporations to altruistically let out online storage and computational power for the good of the digients with no remuneration?), for software developers (same question), for digital food (blockchain enabled, surely, and issued by Blue Gamma to ensure a continuing market for its products)—is no different from how we seem to have decided to treat humans who also must work for their keep for the minimum payments that the market will bear. Assuming we ever actually create true artificial intelligences, why would we treat these potential co-inhabitants of our world any better than we treat ourselves? In fact, as Chiang notes, we could even make it better for AIs, present and future, if we created them to enjoy the work we give them. Why not save them from the agonizing over the apparent meaninglessness of existence that so occupies our thoughts? Imbued with such purpose, imagine the heights to which they could rise!

I have at least two concerns. First, and perhaps more practically, this approach—adopted at least in my telling to avoid the substantial moral issues associated with forced labor and birth into digital serfdom—also seems like the approach most likely to result in a superintelligence focused arbitrarily on the production of paperclips that consumes the world. This is not a desirable outcome! (For humanity, at least.)[8]

But my second concern feels more emotionally relevant, at least in terms of the person I desire to be and the world I desire to inhabit. As you have seen, I have struggled to identify a meaningful standard that would allow us to discriminate between objects that should have rights and objects that need not, and, equally important, how we can know that our standard for discrimination is correctly applied. I don’t believe it is intelligence alone (or even intelligence above a threshold), and I am dubious on consciousness at least on evidentiary grounds. I could point to others in the philosophical literature—the ability to suffer, stable life goals, a persistent conception of self—but those seem to raise the same problems presented by intelligence and consciousness; namely, each is a human-centered yardstick that can’t actually speak to the subjective, and extremely alien, experience of an AI. My point is not so much that consciousness is the incorrect philosophical measure, but simply that consciousness and other subjective measures are not themselves verifiable, and therefore focusing on those measures is ultimately futile. I cannot tell you whether AIs are capable of deserving rights or otherwise satisfying an abstruse definition of personhood because the answer is philosophically unknowable.

So where does that leave us? Are AI ethics just to be a free-for-all until some government, rightly or wrongly, establishes AI “life panels” to set us straight? Are we just to trust in Google or whomever’s self-interested determinations that their programs are nothing more than products? I suspect that some of this may be unavoidable—after all, governments regularly make policy determinations based on expert advice, including the advice of those participants they regulate—but I think we citizens can do more.

Although we cannot verify the subjective experiences of the AIs we are considering, we can, individually, verify our own subjective experiences of interacting with them. While doing so risks wrongly anthropomorphizing something that is not humanlike in any meaningful respect, perhaps such an outcome is not so bad, if it makes us less likely to treat others immorally. And yet, even to make such a subjective determination still requires reliance on some measure. But, if not consciousness or intelligence or capacity for suffering, what are we to use?

Ultimately, the measure I have found myself left with comes from my own (ongoing) experience of discovering my children, who they are and who they might become and how I might help them there. I didn’t have children because I expected to receive a return on my investment or because I wanted to create a legacy, a monument to my own immense worth. At least now that the Industrial Revolution has passed, we don’t bring children into the world because we want to put them to our own selfish economic ends, but because children are a fascination and a delight, because they enrich our experience by their very existence. This enrichment, at root, comes from their potential. Their potential for good, certainly, but also their potential for evil. And their potential for growth, their potential to teach us about who we are, about our own place in the world, their potential to teach us what it truly means to be a human, to contain multitudes. We fill our children up with our hopes, our lessons, our efforts and our love (and, increasingly, I am learning, our Cheez-its and our spaghetti, those locusts), in the hope not that they will glorify us but that they will exceed us. This is the paradox of raising children—having children in order to enrich your own life is inherently selfish, but achieving that richness requires extraordinary, laborious selflessness. We only benefit from our progeny if we act towards their benefit, even at the expense of our own.

In the arc of human history, I am given to understand that this lesson has been hard-won, learned in spite of our biological urges for reproduction, our need for food, shelter, and safety amidst hundreds of thousands of years of challenging (read: warlike) environmental conditions. It is always easier to take something by force than to create conditions in which it might be freely given, but I hope that we are learning that the latter route is better—more moral—for all and not just for those we narrowly define as being sufficiently human to merit consideration, even if that means we must resist the lurid beckoning of enhanced shareholder returns.

Ursula K. LeGuin—giant of science fiction and criticism—spends some time in her essay “The Child and the Shadow” considering the fairytale Hansel & Gretel; she wonders why Gretel is lauded instead of jailed for pushing the witch into the oven. She concludes that since the function of myth is to represent archetypes rather than ethics, ‘happily ever after’ is an appropriate outcome, because:

in those terms, the witch is not an old lady, nor is Gretel a little girl. Both are psychic factors, elements of the complex soul. Gretel is the archaic child-soul, innocent, defenseless; the witch is the archaic crone, the possessor and destroyer, the mother who feeds you cookies and who must be destroyed before she eats you like a cookie, so that you can grow up and be a mother, too.

I have no doubt in the accuracy of Le Guin’s insight; as she observes, mythic archetypes have power because they tap into the chthonic underpinnings of our collective unconsciousness as stories do, as great art does. In my youth, I experienced Hansel & Gretel as a cautionary tale for children: don’t go running into the woods alone in the dark, and if you must, plan and prepare so that your breadcrumbs aren’t eaten by birds and you aren’t captured by a witch. I suppose I even took from the fairytale that I should adopt a healthy skepticism of offers that appear too good to be true. This was, and remains, great advice! But it was an incomplete lesson. Now, as an adult, I find myself considering the witch’s teachings more and more. She, like us, is a caretaker of children. She, like us, is focused on feeding them to make sure they continue to grow and develop. But she has done so in a base manner, towards her own ends, out of her own avarice. And as a result, she ends up in the oven, never to be heard from again.

We should heed her lesson.

~


[1] As a corporate lawyer myself, I deeply sympathize with AIs upon whom that task might be inflicted.

[2] After all, humans regularly misremember things and forget. Is the AI’s moral status dependent on its original hardware or is it a Ship of Theseus? For that matter, what about us?

[3] Cal Newport, writing for the New Yorker, relates an anecdote wherein a researcher asked ChatGPT to write a biblical verse in the style of the King James bible explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR; ChatGPT’s response was nearly majestic—gnostic yet witty, and certainly the equal of professional human-authored poetry.

[4] See, for example, Bostrom’s famous argument that we are likely living in a simulation, or the “philosophical zombie” thought experiment about whether our consciousnesses are purely emergent properties of our bodies or are instead underlaid by souls.

[5] For example, in August, 2024 the New York Times reported on a study alleging that perhaps a quarter of patients in vegetative states may be conscious but display no outward signs of their condition.

[6] These include casual erasure of weeks of lived digient experience; periods of suspended animation, bringing such suspended digients out of sync with their closest friends and family; piracy of digient backups; nonconsensual edits to protective software such as pain limits; torture by malicious human actors; reliance on outdated software that humans have abandoned, leaving the digients living in an enormous but uninhabited world; forced development in accelerated “hothouse” environments so that the digients can develop without human oversight (and experiments to determine if the digients are able to achieve civilization or technological progress, usually ending in digient ferality); proposals to alter digient “physiology” to create sexual organs so that they can engage in virtual prostitution; and proposals to alter digient psychology to force the digient prostitutes to adore their johns.

[7] Deepseek’s avoidance of discussion of the 1989 events in Tiananmen Square is an excellent case in point.

[8] Though it must be noted that given the utilitarian framework’s emphasis on maximizing total pleasure irrespective of its locus, a utilitarian philosopher might tally up the orgiastic joy of paperclip making against the loss of all humanity and conclude this is a fair trade.

~

Bio:

Scott Bell is a hedge fund lawyer and avid science fictionalist. He is a writer at heart; when he isn’t writing essays he can usually be found writing contracts instead.

The Calendar Of Babel

by Richard Lau

I can’t tell you when it happened for reasons that will soon become obvious. But I can tell you what and why.

The great armies of the world lined up like chess pieces off of the western and eastern shores of a small island in the Arctic Ocean. The island itself was a harmless wildlife sanctuary administered by the country of Russia. However, the isolated isle also had the misfortune of sitting at 179 degrees longitude and straddling the International Date Line (IDL).

The island’s Russian name of “Wrangel” seemed oddly appropriate as powerful nations and their less-powerful but no less determined allies tried to “wrangle” control of the IDL from their perceived opponents.

With travel circumnavigating the globe, it had long been accepted that crossing the IDL in an eastbound direction decreased the calendar date by one day; crossing the IDL westward advanced the date by the same amount.

Most of the world’s population believed, if giving the matter any more thought than mere acceptance, that the IDL was defined and protected by international agreement or legally binding treaty. Quite to the contrary, the demarcation largely existed through mutual goodwill, non-imposed cooperation, and loose agreement.

Nations on both sides of the line and even those straddling it had historically shifted a day forward or back depending on purely political, economic, and religious whims. And some, as a matter of mere convenience or contemporary preference, had even switched back.

The result was that the IDL actually zigzagged rather than following strictly and straightly along the 180th meridian. It might be better to think of the IDL as something fluid rather than a solid, inviolate line, more as a balloon reacting to the tug of an impatient child or swayed by a current wind of favor.

So, it was neither new nor novel when the United States proclaimed itself the only remaining Super Power and suggested reversing the current measuring units of the IDL.

The official patriotic notice declared “As the United States of America is the most advanced nation in the world, it makes no sense for it to always be a day behind the other countries. We create the future, so we should be in the future. It’s as simple as that.”

China, who was regaining prominence on the global stage disagreed. “This is yet another example of American imperialism and aggression. Why disrupt the schedules and clocks of the world just to satisfy the selfish ego of one nation with a reputation of bullying and going rogue?”

As a sanction and a buffer, China proposed thickening the IDL by 30 degrees on the US side of the dateline, putting said country two hours further back into the past. By the current IDL standard, every 15 degrees of longitude on either side of the IDL resulted in an adjustment of one hour, an addition or subtraction depending upon the direction travelled.

Russia agreed with China, as long as one minute was added to each country for every degree of latitude north of the equator. China, which lay significantly above the equator, appreciated the additional amount of time but disliked the greater gain the plan provided to its more northern neighbor.

Tensions grew as more and more countries got involved in defining their own time zones, especially those in the Southern hemisphere led by Australia and Ecuador, who felt offended at being left out of the Russian plan. Others, with economic, financial, and historical ties to the U.S. were torn between retaining favor by siding with the proposed IDL reversal and struggling with the temporal temptation of setting their own clocks to the beats of their own independent wants and needs.

Even inside the United States, divisions arose. Arizona, which never accepted Daylight Saving Time, gleefully changed its clocks by two hours in an effort to spend even more daylight. California, its more progressive neighbor to the west, adjusted its own clocks by three hours to counteract Arizona’s “overspending.” The federal government was asked to resolve the conflict, but Congress was on its newly minted holiday “New New Year’s Day,” which occurred anytime politics got too contentious. New New Year’s Day happened to fall on an almost daily basis, much to the delight of the fireworks industry.

The Protestant versus Catholic rivalry was reignited as England returned to the Julian calendar and took back the eleven days it had lost. The rousing slogan of “God Save the King and the Eleven!” was chanted throughout the British kingdom. In response, Pope Gregory XIX considered an entirely new calendar with Saturdays being replaced with an early start to Sunday to allow more time for masses and services. Orthodox Jews weren’t happy about the Papal proposal and immediately ended their Decembers with a seven-day extension of the 24th, in spite of the confusion about what to do with the menorah candles during some years.

Many religious followers could not help but see the temporal turbulence as a similar situation to the Tower of Babel. As the story went, a long time ago a united human race spoke a single language and had the hubris to overstep its bounds by building a tower so tall that it touched the Heavens. As punishment, the Lord sowed confusion by giving populations different languages and scattering them across the world. In trying to bend and corrupt Time to their own selfish uses, humankind had reaped the Calendar of Babel.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations pleaded for a peaceful and orderly solution that was fair to all humanity. His request was immediately dismissed by invested critics who pointed out that the unfortunate man was born on February 29, and in spite of his esteemed position, one who possessed a mere sixteen birthdays had no standing or enough experience to tell mature nations what to do.

The UN then issued a heartfelt plea to Italy, who at the time, appeared to be the most influential nation to remain neutral. However, it was soon revealed that the reason for Italy’s silence was not neutrality, but a secret and severe back-dating return to the 15th century, to re-celebrate the glory days of its Rinascimento.

As the telephone, much less the Internet, hadn’t been invented yet, all calls and e-mails remained unanswered. All communication was handled through handwritten correspondence, but this method was slow in delivery and deciphering, for the only individuals who still retained the skill of cursive were monks and doctors. To make matters worse, the Italians honored one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci, by focusing on writing backwards, which only led to more confusion and difficulty in translation.

With each locality defining its own measurement of time within their borders, the world economy quickly collapsed. How could anyone enact any financial transactions when one or both parties were either away for a newly defined weekend, enjoying a good extended night’s rest, or celebrating a holiday?

No one could really say how long the chaos reigned once the tick-tock genie had been released from Pandora’s bottle. For some countries, it was only a matter of seconds. For others, centuries had passed. Scientists could only say that the Doomsday Clock had advanced closer to midnight, but whose midnight remained the big question.

In Belgium, where the government had redefined “quarterly” to mean “twice weekly,” the editorial team of a speculative philosophy journal ironically found themselves without any time at all. Looking at their insurmountable mountain of submissions, they yelled, “Enough is enough!” The rest of the world agreed.

The problem was not what to do but how to do it. By now, the world’s citizens had tired of the resulting and continuous confusion and frustration. Countries were willing to sacrifice their special time delineations for peace of mind and stability among people and nations. They agreed that the prior IDL guidelines were ideal, but how to return to them without any particular nation losing face for its embarrassing behavior?

Everyone was going in circles, and yet, perhaps, that was the solution.

It was revealed that a new space station, built and launched by a technology billionaire, was still running on the old calendar and showed that a little more than 30 days had passed under the new time regime. All of the nations informally agreed to sync with the time and date of the space station clock under the old IDL standard. But how to erase the recent period of blunders?

Travelling at about five miles per second, the station orbited the Earth sixteen times in a twenty-four-hour period. The astronauts aboard the station changed its trajectory to cross over the still unmodified IDL in an eastward direction. In 48 hours, they had successfully set the calendar back 32 days, to the time before the United States had originally issued its IDL proclamation.

But bad ideas die hard, and soon the idea of manipulating the IDL and its time zones came up again. However, this time better, wiser, and more experienced heads prevailed. They decided to table the issue until the next day. And so on. And so on.

~

Bio:

Richard Lau is an award-winning writer who is published in magazines, newspapers, and anthologies, as well as in the high-tech industry and online.

Philosophy Note:

n these divisive times of war and political turmoil, it seems that humankind cannot agree on anything–except a standardized measurement of time. But what if that fell away as well?

Just Add Salt

by Al Simmons

Do you remember the classic sci-fi film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers? I’ll bet you didn’t know the film was based on a true story that took place in Northern California, in the San Francisco Bay Area where I live. They say the film is getting another remake, only this time they plan on telling the true story.

The first two film versions followed the same script. Seed pods traveling through outer space dropped to Earth and somehow took human lives for their own while they slept to become a new human-alien hybrid species in both body and soul, a non-sentimental and emotionless kind, but happy in their bland, dominating, conformist way. 

In real life, they didn’t take over human lives. They simulated humans. They were more copycat than hybrid, and arrived much earlier, over a century, in fact, in a modest showering and not nearly as dramatic.  

Basically, the pod people grew into themselves, but resembled us. They called themselves Alterians because they adopted the form of indigenous populations in order to blend in wherever they venture.  

The first crop mixed well and shared technology. Industrial revolution, anyone? They were peaceful, practiced non-violence, followed the law, stayed out of trouble, and the news, and life went on. 

The Alterians were basically intelligent seeds, a thinking man’s seed pod. They were easy to get along with, though most would consider them bland. They were shape shifting seeds that grew up to be people. 

The pod people, or Alterians, came out in the mid-1950s with the advent and popularity of sci-fi movies. Aliens love sci-fi. Who would have thought? Though fiercely competitive by nature, they claimed to have nothing to compete for on Earth. Other planets, perhaps, but not on ours. But Earth is where they landed so here they were. 

It really came down to genetics. Our personas, individual traits, characteristics and physical designs are manifest and embedded into our DNA. Alterians don’t have DNA. They have their own three letters. The Alterians may resemble humans in most ways, but lacked the genetic markers to reproduce with humans, and vice versa. A human would have more luck mating with a tree. The other thing, and maybe more importantly, neither species had the means to digest the other. Carbon-based life forms were about as nourishing to an Alterian as sand was to a human.  

The pod people grew their own food supplies. Alterians were self-sufficient within their communities, and kept ample food stores to sustain themselves. They carried within them a seed library should they reach a land rich in cadmium required for their unique bio-signatures to take root, grow and thrive. Alterian cell structure required cadmium to grow like plants on Earth required nitrogen to flourish. The Alterians wandered the galaxy on a limited resource platform, living a strict disciplined scientific existence, and only procreating when necessary to maintain their numbers. Their lives were therefore pretty hit or miss, and why they probably evolved to be so emotionless. 

Interspecies crosspollination didn’t work with humans and Alterians, despite the physical likenesses and familiar mammalian pleasure feedback reward mechanisms inviting both groups to try, and try they did. Alterians were easy to find attractive considering they made every effort to resemble you. But try as many did, the match had yet to bear fruit.

I’ve met a few Alterian women. To me, Alterians were like hybrid corn, all starch and no story. Up close they even smelled like high-fructose corn syrup. I admit, I invited one home more than a couple of times, actually. She was addictive. She even tasted like high-fructose corn syrup. 

But in the end, I had to cut her off like a bad habit.

The whole idea of dating an alien was insane. Nobody liked the idea. She was rather dry. But the inability to procreate was the underlining factor.

“You need an alien? An Earth girl isn’t good enough for you?” my mother argued, accusing me of near bestiality.

But once Alterians stepped out of the shadows, as it were, and thus drew a spotlight to themselves and their life on Earth, their fortunes radically changed for the entire alien group as a whole. In retrospect, they should have kept to themselves. The federal government got involved and dedicated a piece of land in Utah, rich in cadmium and not much else, to the Alterians to establish a reservation there, and to get them out of the general population, who had grown uneasy with the idea of aliens among us, and giving new meaning to unalienable rights.

The official government grant made it clear the land had the cadmium requirements the Alterians needed, though not sufficient to support an alien population explosion. There was enough cadmium to sustain their numbers, and maybe a little more.

So, that’s where they went, the whole lot of them, off to the first Alterian Reservation on Earth, located on a bare piece of land in central Utah, about 100 miles west of the Great Salt Flats.

The relocation of the Alterians turned out to be their doom and a total disaster for both the alien population and the human race who prospered by them. But who knew salt would affect them that way? 

On their second night on the reservation, the Alterian elders announced a meeting outdoors beneath the stars. Everyone was expected to attend. They gathered beneath a spectacular clear high desert sky begging for stargazers when a sand storm originating downwind from the Great Salt Flats caught them by surprise and lit them up like sparklers on the 4th of July.  And within seconds, the sequestered Alterians in mass turned a deep emerald glow and burned to a crisp.

Leave it to the dogs to discover salted aliens cooked right were digestible.

But here’s the thing, according to chefs in the Salt Lake City Gazette, Food Section, once prepared, salted, and cooked, the Alterians tasted just like BBQ pork, juicy, and kind of sweet.

Bad news for the few remaining Alterians, because once the news got out, they never stood a chance. Even today, the ritual of tossing salt over your shoulder pre-entry at some big-city high-end conservative venues is still required.

~

Bio:

Al Simmons was Poet-in-Residence, City of Chicago, 1979-80. He has been quoted on the front page of the New York Times, Living Arts Section. He was nominated for a 2021 Rhysling Award. His work has recently appeared in 44 magazines and anthologies since 2017, including Abyss & Apex, Kanstellation, Urban Arts, Illumen, The Novelette-Dark Fantasy, The Reckoning, Path of Absolute Power, Dyskami Press, Cosmic Horror Monthly, Knight Publishing, What Really Happened, and Cutleaf.  He lives in Alameda, California.

Philosophy Note:

The true story. Who knew salt would have such an effect on them…

Another White Elephant?

by Richard Lau

The term “white elephant” refers to a gift that at first appears to be magnificent but upon further analysis has some serious drawbacks. A literal white elephant might be wonderful to look at, but is it worth the food, care, and upkeep?

#

Zeus shook his head in a mix of disbelief and disgust.

“Are we really back here again?” he asked the titan shackled to the rocky mountainside. Even lying on his back, the giant cut an imposing figure, seeming like a small mountain range of red cloth, white fur trim, and black accents.

Prometheus declined to dignify Zeus’ rhetorical question with a response, only continuing to produce a buoyant rhythmic hum.

“What is that infernal noise?” demanded the king of gods.

“Finally, a question worth answering!” answered the prisoner. “It’s a tune by Britney Spears.”

“Spears?” repeated Zeus. “Sounds like a daughter of Ares, the God of War. Who is this mortal?”

“Britney’s immortal!” Even bound and facing an eternity of punishment, Prometheus was a fan of the pop singer. “And the song is ‘Ooops, I Did It Again.’”

“Ah, a sarcastic apology, considering your recent actions. I would expect nothing less from one who has been referring to himself as a ‘jolly old elf.’”

Zeus gave the giant’s manacled black boot a hard kick and immediately realized that it was not a smart move for one with sandaled feet. To cover his pain and impetuous foolishness, Zeus changed the subject of their discussion. He had always been a little sensitive about his weight, for even as a swan, he was a bit plump. So, in a smooth transition of transference, he nodded to the bared chest and belly below the giant’s long, flowing white beard.

“My eagle’s going to have to peck through several inches of fat to reach your liver this time.”

The abdomen shook like a bowl full of jelly. “Ho ho ho. I hope your foul bird chokes!”

“For one whose name means ‘foresight,’ your talent for stumbling into trouble is worse than a blinded cyclops.”

The titan was defiant. “What makes you think I didn’t see this punishment coming? Or the previous one?”

The lord of Olympus grinned. “I don’t know of many people who intentionally want their livers eaten out by an eagle every day. Or to have the organ regrown every night so that the cycle could repeat for eternity.”

“You also don’t know anything about intentional noble sacrifice,” Prometheus responded.

“Are you implying that disobeying me, stealing fire from the sun, and gifting it to the humans was worth it?”

You were the one who told me to create the humans. You were the one who teamed me up with my brother Epimetheus, who gave all of the best gifts to the animals.”

Zeus remained nonchalantly silent, so Prometheus continued to make his point. “He gave them covering–thick hides, fur, scales, feathers, and shells. He gave them cunning, speed, strength, claws, and the ability to fly. What could I do? What gifts were left for the humans?”

“You do what you did do,” replied Zeus. “You made the humans god-like in form, with them having the ability to stand upright.”

“A token gift of vanity at the most! A blessing that would not save them from being slaughtered by the animals. The fragile humans needed a chance to survive.”

“And your solution was to give them fire?”

“Fire gave them the ability to keep warm, to protect themselves, to see in the darkness, and to keep the animals at bay.”

“And what else did they do with the fire?”

“Many things! Smelt metals for tools. Cooked food and boiled water. Developed sanitation and medication.”

Zeus’ snort was like a roll of thunder. “And also created combustion that pollutes the very air they breathe! And made weapons that can kill hundreds in an instant. So quick! So tidy! Even Ares was displeased. The God of War prefers battles to last a little longer!”

“I’m sure he has his own bloodthirsty reasons,” added Prometheus, not meeting Zeus’ gaze but looking skyward, as if expectantly searching for the promised eagle.

“Do not concern yourself. Your jailer and tormentor will be here soon enough. When my son Heracles freed you, didn’t you think I could have put you right back here if I wanted to? Did you doubt my power to do so? It would have been as simple as resurrecting the bird we are awaiting upon now. You are fortunate that I fully blame Heracles for its death and not you.

“Instead, I let you reinvent yourself, just watched with the other gods as you opened a toy factory in the polar region and continue to indulge yourself with gifting things to humans.”

“Once a year? And with shallow commercialized items that were frivolous and inconsequential? The whole time I was planning my next gift, my next real gift. To all of humanity, not just momentary and trendy distractions for little children. Something for generations to come!”

“Bah! How did you become so twisted, Prometheus? To stake your loyalty with the mortals instead of the gods?”

Prometheus spat. “Loyalty? You dare speak of loyalty? Is this the way you reward someone who helped you defeat the other titans? You, the man who overthrew his own father to rule Olympus?”

Zeus ignored these salient points of his history. “I had forbidden you to give the mortals fire. And yet you did so. And instead of blessing your good fortune that you were released from my punishment, instead of enjoying the new life you were allowed to create for yourself, instead of being grateful for my mercy and benevolence, you returned to Mount Olympus and stole again. This time, you took something more powerful than fire, something even more forbidden that the humans should not have. Do you realize what you’ve done?”

Prometheus, as defiant as ever, proudly and immediately answered. “I have given the humans more freedom than you have ever allowed them. I have given them the ability to fulfill their destiny to reach the stars, thus achieving greater heights than even vaunted Mount Olympus itself. To go so far as to finally escape your tyrannical grasp. I have…”

A lightning bolt flashed down from the heavens, accompanied by an angry, impatient thunderclap, interrupting the giant’s proclamation. “Another white elephant gift! You have given the mortals another and better means to destroy themselves long before they ever travel the far reaches of space that you speak of. And with the humans passing, so go what few worshippers we gods have left.”

“The knowledge will help them,” Prometheus insisted. “It is a new source of fuel. A new understanding of the universe that will enable them to develop new, unimagined technologies!”

“It is something that should have never left the dark corner of Pandora’s box.”

A humongous eagle landed beside the two figures on the craggy cliffside. It folded its wings and pecked experimentally, sharpening its beak on a rock. Prometheus closed his eyes, not needing his gift of foresight, but knowing full well from experience what was about to occur.

Zeus sighed and turned away. “Why, Prometheus, why did you have to give them the secret of dark energy?”

~

Bio:

Richard Lau is an award-winning writer who is published in magazines, newspapers, and anthologies, as well as in the high-tech industry and online. His stories have recently appeared in Sci Phi Journal and The Last Line Journal. Two of his stories will be appearing in Carpe Noctem (Tyche Books) and Dark Decades: Capture (Disturb Ink Books) later in 2024.

Philosophy Note:

What if two legendary gift-givers were actually the same person? The term “white elephant” refers to a gift that at first appears to be magnificent but upon further analysis has some serious drawbacks. Is Prometheus a good gift giver or a reckless one?

Olympia

by Gheorghe Săsărman

Translated from the Romanian by Monica Cure

—We created you! Without us, you never would have existed, the Hellenes yelled, scattering among the gleaming statues supporting the azure dome.

More fiercely than the others, Phidias raised his arms toward the heavens:

—With these hands of mine I chiseled you, with these calloused fingers I uncovered your eyes from Parian and Pentelic marble!

—That is true, the crowd agreed in unison.

They had gathered here, at the foot of Olympus[1], all the most illustrious men of Greek antiquity. Smiling and cold, the gods showed themselves completely indifferent to the insolence of the rebels. Unmoved, their countless white forms looked like gigantic pillars in the infinite temple of the Universe.

—I fear we are making a mistake, Plato thought to himself. These statues are, perhaps, our creation, that of Phidias and Praxiteles, of Scopas and others. But they are only the pale children of the true, eternal gods, their shadows, the only accessible image to us of the ideal of immortality.

However, fearing the raging mob, the wise man vociferated together with the others, playing along.

—I can destroy you whenever I want, because I gave you life and I will take it back when I wish, Phidias continued his taunt, to the acclamation of the demos.

The peak wrapped itself in a halo of fog. A slight breeze started from off the mountain. The people did not notice the first signs of the approaching storm.

—I fear we are making a mistake, Aristotle thought to himself. These pillars of the eternal city are, perhaps, the gods themselves, we are not the ones who created them. But our entire history is nothing more than a moment in their lives without beginning or end, and it is only natural that their persons seem motionless to us.

—We defeated even the Persians, exclaimed Pericles, heatedly. Must we now fear our gods, our very own gods?

Hundreds of warriors cheered him on.

—Let us smash them, Phidias roared, tearing a lance out of the hands of a soldier.

The sunlight grew pale. Black clouds rolled over the blue cupola of the city, darkening it. The foreheads of the gods disappeared in the gloom.

—They are challenging us, the people yelled, losing their minds.

Instead of terrifying them, the threat of the storm goaded them. Armed with lances and swords, with axes and iron bars, they descended onto the statues, to whose ankles they could not even reach. In that moment, the attackers froze in the aggressive positions of a crazed destructive fury. They remained like that for a while, stock still, as white as the gods.

Then, from Zeus’s uplifted fist, lightening flared, and the flood burst forth from the entire firmament. The paralyzed bodies of the people slowly dissipated under the torrents of water. The rain washed away the crown of their heads and their shoulders, it dissolved their fragile phalanges. Their weapons fell from their hands, with a clang. Soon the crowd had vanished as if in a dream. The whiteness of the frozen bodies had proven to be the deceptive and ephemeral whiteness of salt.

When the rain died down and the blue of the sky widened again until it reached the horizon, among the white marble torsos of the gods, all that remained was a barrel full of brine, in which floated the extinguished wick of a candle.


[1] Not to be confused with the ancient city of Olympia, in Elis, renowned for the athletic competitions held here every four years and for the statue of Zeus made from gold and ivory, the work of Phidias, considered at the time one of the seven wonders of the world.

~

The Archive

by Bob Johnston

Marrak slipped and fell heavily on her backside. The land had turned out to be a nightmare of deep, ankle-breaking pits. She thought of the crippled capsule on the high moor behind her. Crippled, but weatherproof, and with ample supplies. God, what a journey.

She resisted the urge to stand and push on. She was tiring and weakening rapidly, and had to manage her physical resources cleverly. Another ten minutes wouldn’t hurt, even if the anemic sunlight of Barnard’s Star would soon be gone for forty hours. She sat tight for the full ten minutes, ate a little, drank a lot, and then pressed on.

Long, tough walks force the mind to do two things at once; focus and wander. From the doubt when she left earth, her resolve to find a safe place for the Gutenberg Bible in her backpack had only strengthened as she got closer to her destination. Even now, increasingly scared of falling, breaking something and dying slowly, that resolve was unbroken.

She crashed out of the field of ferns and onto a mat of what passed for grass here. The mountains were close and, she was glad to see, not so intimidatingly high as they had seemed from a distance.

What did the book she was carrying really mean, she wondered. She wasn’t sure, but she lived in a time when the incinerators were back at work across the galaxy, and she had decided, if there was one book she could save, it was going to be the Gutenberg. It wasn’t burning on her watch, she remembered thinking dramatically. She smiled and stepped forward into the light drizzle. When the inquisitors of rationality came looking, Marrak had decided the Gutenberg would be gone.

#

The Archive, if it actually existed, had once been a military facility. Then it had become a repository for business records. Then some enterprising sort had taken ownership of the complex and, instead of torching the lot and making some other use of the place, they had started reading the material lining its shelves. And it became the legendary Archive, holding the second most important thing in the universe, knowledge. The first is, of course, time.

She imagined how this citadel built for war might look, but when she finally stumbled upon it, sore and blistered, she found a modest single floored structure with a slate roof. She sat on a raised bank of rock and fern. There was no question that this had once been a military location. Barely a stone’s throw to her left was a massive gun emplacement, its concrete base still terrifying but magnificent, the barrel a huge lump of rust.

Finally rested, she walked to the door and knocked, politely but firmly, three times.

The door opened and a very ordinary man stood in front of her. He smiled.

‘Can I help you?’

She had practiced her reply many times.

‘I have a Gutenberg Bible. I heard there was an archive where it might be safe.’

‘You look like you’ve had a tough journey. Come on in.’

#

Menhenick and his colleagues seemed delighted to have new company. He was enthusiastic to show her the vast, cavernous underworld below the modest building on the surface.

‘The process of organizing such a vast archive will take centuries. The business that established this facility was cynical in the extreme. Knowing that most of what came in would never be looked for again they simply piled it in. They forgot that, seen again or not, it was important, otherwise it would not be here.’

Marrak ran her hands along a shelf of newly translated and printed material.

‘Do you engage with this stuff? I mean, beyond archiving, does any of it interest you personally?’

He smiled.

‘Most of it is like everything else, but I have dealt with a few amusing pieces. We found a package recently that had been deposited in a rural bank shortly before a major world war on earth. The receipt for the deposit was signed by several members of prominent families in the town. The pack contained substantial amounts of paper cash; in the currency of the enemy their country would soon be facing. I studied the families in question and they remained influential for several generations while none of their neighbors ever knew that their grandparents had been feathering their own nests, even in the face of a foreign invasion.’

He looked at Marrak, his face now serious.

‘It is a small anecdote but it demonstrates how important information is. If anyone in that bank had told the town what its most notable citizens had hidden away, things would have been very difficult for those families. Information is the most ubiquitous of things, the easiest to record, and that which the powerful are most fearful of. Hence their constant obsession with concealing it. An obsession that never succeeds.’

Marrak unslung her rucksack and remove the bible. She unwrapped the book and held it up to him.

‘This is one of the most important books ever printed and I want to ensure it is never thrown into the flames. Can you help me?’

Menhenick looked the book up and down as if it was a penny paperback at a second-hand book sale.

‘We have many early printed books and you are correct, this is important in the history of printing. But you seem to have a more intimate attachment to what is just paper and ink.’

Marrak was outraged.

‘Just paper and ink? It’s a Bible.’

Menhenick merely smiled, once more.

‘I understand. A sacred text. We will take care of it but it will simply become another part of The Archive.’

Menhenick took the Gutenberg Bible and placed it on a high table behind him.

‘We will look after it, believe me.’

The immensity of his lack of understanding suddenly overwhelmed her.

‘Menhenick, that is not just a book, it is…’

‘We do not doubt how sacred this document is but we are also confident that your God is perfectly capable of recreating it anywhere and anytime it is needed. This is an archive, not a church.’

#

Marrak walked under the feeble rays of Barnard’s Star. The Archive had no vehicles to take her back to her stricken capsule, but had given her plenty of food, water, and assurances that her Bible would be cared for. She sighed. It clearly meant little to them, beyond its notoriety and seeming danger to the powerful.

She stepped out of the valley of the Archive and was awed by the landscape in front of her. She had not once looked back on the journey in, vision still blurred by single-minded purpose. All this beauty shrouded from her on that walk.

She could call for rescue when she reached the capsule but, smiling, she realized she was in no particular rush right now to be anywhere other than here.

She sat down and prayed quietly.

~

Bio:

Bob Johnston lives in Scotland where he scribbles, reads theology, and marvels at the country’s beauty when it isn’t raining, which isn’t often. He likes a good story; ancient, old, or brand new and tries to create good stories of his own.

Philosophy Note:

The inspiration for this story is the censoriousness of recent years, and the Bowdlerising of old established titles. None of this is new, but one does hope that these waves of narrow-minded banning might eventually come to a stop. Philosophically the piece addresses the conflicting human drives to protect knowledge and to suppress it, and whether those who protect it need to be particularly interested in it.

Stereopolis

by Gheorghe Săsărman

Translated from the Romanian by Monica Cure

The sixth sense—stereognosis, as the special sense of spatial orientation had been named—stood no chance of hereditary integration. The categorical verdict of the geneticists had provoked intense agitation among the Stereopolitan population and stirred up heated discussions throughout the entire world. Visionary geniuses had dreamed up the audacious project of a fully dimensional city, in which the tyranny of the horizontal and the vertical, of the right angle, of the plane, would be abolished; many generations of constructors had toiled to pave the way for the realization of the materials and technologies that would make such a feat possible. No one had foreseen the terrible outcome.

The fully dimensional city—Stereopolis—was now a reality. A reality in which a humanity of tens of billions had put its hopes, as the ultimate chance for survival. It had become evident that only complete control of all three dimensions in urban planning could halt the covering of the entire surface of the planet in an endless carpeting of city that would slowly suffocate it in its own malignant tissue. The slanted curve, tridimensional surfaces, and spatiality, made possible not only the free and organic composition of functions, but also the full inhabitation of the environment, the rational resolution of constructional problems, optimal sun exposure and ventilation, convenient distribution of consumer goods, and efficient waste collection. A score of locations, where the Stereopolitan prototype in variants of increasing perfection would be repeated, had been prepared. A dozen construction sites had already been set in motion; the complicated process of assembling the spatial elements was directed by the most powerful computers in existence.

After the new Stereopolitans had settled into their freshly-made residences, the first worrying signs began to appear: the people weren’t able to adapt to the completely unprecedented demands on their sense of orientation. It was as if an ant, accustomed to moving across a piece of straw or among the stalks of a wheat field, had been buried in a pile of sand, from which it was expected to immediately emerge. Numerous disappearances were registered—especially from among the elderly and teenagers, who were unable to rely on the help of electronic guides—and the time lost during daily commutes was incomparably greater to what it had been before (though the distances to be crossed now were much shorter), which caused complaints. Under the pressure of public opinion, of lengthy media campaigns, special measures were adopted to supplement the means of public transport and perfect the automatic guidance system. The number of those who got lost sharply declined; however, a strange illness, later dubbed stereopolitis, appeared, which caused quite a stir throughout the entire world. At first, those affected by this malady suffered from spells of dizziness, accompanied by the persistent feeling of nausea. Then, their balance was thrown off and they experienced piercing occipital pain. By the time the doctors found an explanation, and decided on a treatment, the patients had succumbed to the illness, because it evolved extremely rapidly. In the end, an agreement was reached that the only solution was for people who had just been affected by stereopolitis to be evacuated from the city; in this way, though they would never completely recovery, it was possible (after a long period of convalescence) for the formerly ill to be reintegrated into a life of useful activity—under the interdiction, of course, of ever returning to Stereopolis.

Given that the number of illnesses were skyrocketing, they began taking preventive measures: the city’s entire population was subjected to special tests, which resembled those employed for the selection of candidates for long term missions in outer space. Those who passed the preliminary stages then went through an intensive training period, which ensured relative immunity. Those who “flunked” were not admitted; for their own good, everyone who lacked the aptitudes was evacuated. In time, the illness died down and very rarely did a case or two flare up. Visitors were advised not to stay in the city more than a week, and those who wanted to move there definitively—if they were not rejected after the first tests—did their prescribed training period. It seemed as if the situation had been definitively resolved. Meanwhile, several new fully dimensional cities were about to be brought into use. The selection committees were busily winnowing out the candidates, the training of the first sets had started, some had already moved in. The official inauguration was expected to take place any day now. That is when the truly dramatic turn of events happened: it was determined, as I was saying, that stereognosis—which the locals had struggled so hard to obtain—was not transmitted to one’s descendants except completely at random.

Those hit worst by the geneticists’ conclusion were the inhabitants of Stereopolis itself. For their children’s sakes, many left the city, only to find out afterward that they could no longer readapt to the predominantly bi-dimensional, traditional orthogonal urban space; in the end, a few of them returned. Others made the decision never to procreate; but it was against their nature and it did not last long.

—I fear for the future of this city… thought the Architect.

He saw people abandoning their children in order to avoid endangering their lives, he saw them committing them to special institutions until the age when they would undergo the tests—and woe to those who failed to pass them! He saw how, void of meaning, the family itself disintegrated, preparing society for a new kind of individual freedom, but plunging the individual into the darkness of isolation, loneliness, and bitterness.

Is there really no other way?

~

The Science Fiction And Philosophy Society: An Introduction

by Anand Vaidya, Ethan Mills, and Manjula Menon

Writers of speculative fiction and philosophers share common attributes. First, there is the process itself. Science-fiction writers may use ‘what if’ scenarios to create their works, while philosophers often use thought experiments to draw out intuitions about philosophical insights. Consider the famous Trolley thought experiment, the first version of which was published as a survey question in 1906 by the American philosopher Frank Chapman Sharp as part of an empirical study. It asked the survey-taker to assume the role of a railway switchman who is faced with a terrible dilemma: he must choose between allowing a runaway train to run over and kill a group of strangers or to switch the train to a different track where it would run over and kill his own daughter. Sharp used the studies’ results to confirm that people are more likely to choose the scenario that adheres to the utilitarian ethical position that advocates for the maximization of well-being for the group, where the ethical solution is to sacrifice a single life to save the many. A modern version asks us to imagine how an artificial intelligence in control of guiding trains from track to track might behave if faced with a similar runaway train scenario: if it does nothing, the train will run over and kill a group of people, if it intervenes and switches tracks, it will kill one person. Would the AI, one that has presumably been trained in the deontological principle of not taking any action that would lead to the death of a human, instead take the consequentialist view that utilitarians like Sharp would advocate for and throw the switch? This is the kind of question a science-fiction writer might take as a ‘what-if’ scenario to build a story around: ‘F80-21a strained through millions of simulations in the split second it had to act, but all returned suboptimal results: one or more humans would have to die.’

The philosopher Hilary Putnam’s Twin-Earth thought experiment aims to draw out our intuitions about ‘meaning’. The thought experiment posits a planet that is exactly like Earth in all respects, except for one: whereas water on Earth is a compound with the chemical formula of H2O, Twin-Earth’s water, which behaves in exactly the same way as on Earth, is a compound with the chemical formula XYZ. The two earths are identical in every other way: every person, blade of grass or building on Earth has a twin on Twin-Earth that talks, behaves, and acts exactly the same. Putnam then asks if what is meant when a person says ‘water’ on Earth is the same as what is meant when the person’s twin on Twin-Earth says ‘water’. Most people answer in the negative, that what is meant by water on Earth is different from what is meant by water on Twin-Earth, since the underlying chemical formulas differ. Putnam used this thought experiment as part of an argument for semantic externalism, the thesis that holds that the meaning of a word is not just in the head but has some basis in factors external to the speaker. Note that since Putnam used water to run his thought experiment, all things comprised in part or in whole of water would also be compositionally different. Yet, humans on both Twin-Earth and Earth would think of themselves as humans whose bodies are composed mostly of water. If these two groups were to meet, then would there be any need to change the words to note the difference, for example, by referring to water on Twin-Earth as twin-water? Arguably, the more likely scenario is that the groups would continue to use the word water to describe the liquids on both earths, with the understanding that the word water refers to a liquid that is water-like. This same reasoning can be applied to the words used in science-fiction to describe aliens. For expediency, science fiction writers might describe an alien as ‘happy to see the color blue’, when what is meant by the words ‘happy’, ‘blue’, or ‘see’, might be more accurately described as happy-like, blue-like, or see-like.

The eminently quotable science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clarke, once said, ‘I don’t pretend we have all the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about.’ [1] Which points to another commonality between philosophers and science-fiction writers: curiosity.

Although formed under the auspices of the main professional organization for philosophers—the American Philosophical Association, the Science Fiction and Philosophy Society does not take itself too seriously, a fact easily verified with even the most cursory of visits to our website.  As to what the society will be up to, one view is that it will serve as a gathering spot for writers of science fiction and philosophers to cross-pollinate ideas for mutual edification. Another account holds that the society will help to explore the notion that science fiction can be considered ‘doing’ philosophy.

What counts as ‘doing’ philosophy has been debated for millennia. Plato, the fifth century BC Greek philosopher, separated the art of poetics that included dramatic narrative, from philosophy, which for him was a method to arrive at Truth through a process of reasoning and argument. Plato regarded the art of poetics as mimesis or an attempt to imitate the world around us, a world that for Plato was already a poor representation of the truth. For Plato, poetics was not just doomed but even dangerous, so much so that his vision of an ideal society as he laid out in The Republic was one in which not a single poet was allowed. Plato’s star pupil, Aristotle, while agreeing with Plato that it was only through logic that the truth could be discovered, allowed in Rhetoric for the evocation of pathos or emotion in an audience as a means of persuasion.

Plato’s sharp distinction between poetics and philosophy held for thousands of years, even as what counts as ‘doing’ philosophy has changed. For example, when Isaac Newton published his seminal Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in 1687, it was considered the product of doing natural philosophy. Science, the glamorous daughter of natural philosophy, has since proved fantastically successful in building theories that explain and accurately predict how the world works. These discoveries have been harnessed to provide a more easeful life for humans, one not as subservient to the vagaries of disease, starvation, or the natural elements. However, unsettling questions remain, including the question of why, after over five decades of dedicated and diligent searching, not one bio or techno-marker has been found that would indicate the presence of technologically advanced aliens. Or the many questions swirling around the nature of consciousness.

Science fiction writers have dived into these gaps. For example, novels like Arthur C. Clarke’s 1953 Childhood’s End, explored theories of mind by positing a vast cosmic consciousness, one devoid of any material attributes, that humanity would one day merge with. Iain M. Banks’s 1987 novel, Consider Phlebas, posited ‘Minds’, artificial intelligences whose abilities so surpassed human cognition that they effectively became humanity’s benevolent rulers. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, considered to be the father of space exploration, wrote the 1928 novel The Will of the Universe: The Unknown Intelligence, in which he makes a case for panpsychism.

Likewise, the battle between the forces of good and evil has inspired countless science-fiction works, perhaps echoing the scripture of the Abrahamic religious traditions. Non-western philosophical traditions also have ‘what if’ scenarios that could interest science-fiction writers. What if the universe really is dualist, where the demarcation line is not where Descartes drew it as between mind and matter, but as the Indian Samkhya tradition has it between Prakriti and Purusha? What would society look like if the Confucian ideals of junzi and dao were encoded into law? What if Jainism is right and the universe really is composed of six eternal substances?

Even if we were to allow that such works of fiction can be ‘doing’ philosophy, is fiction a flexible enough medium to support the rigorous argumentation that is the bedrock of philosophical accounts?

According to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s biographer, Norman Malcolm, Wittgenstein once said ‘A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.’[2] Satire, a literary form that uses humorous fiction to argue against some flavor of political philosophy was unlikely to have been what Wittgenstein was referring to. Instead, as an advocate of logical atomism, which is a view that holds that there are logical facts in the world that cannot be broken down further, it is more likely that Wittgenstein had something else in mind. Although the word ‘meme’ was a neologism coined in 1976 by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins almost three decades after Wittgenstein’s death, a ‘meme’ is an analogue of the ‘logical atom’ from logical atomism but applied to the cultural realm: a meme is a basic unit of cultural meaning that cannot be further broken down. Like their biological counterparts, the genes, these basic building blocks of cultural meaning could be strung together to construct complex ideas. Wittgenstein, as a logical atomist, might have been thinking along the lines of a philosophical work constructed entirely of humorous memes.

Typing ‘philosophy memes’ into a search engine brings up thousands of hits. There is one with the golden lab on a sandy beach looking contemplatively at a glorious sunset that is captioned ‘When your dog ate your philosophy homework.’ Or the one that makes use of a scene from the movie Babadook, where a mother driving a car twists back and screams, ‘Why can’t you just be normal?’ and the child in the backseat, whose face has been replaced with that of Socrates, screams in response, ‘Define Normal!’. If one could select and arrange the memes in the form of a thesis, supporting arguments, conclusions, objections to conclusions, and responses to objections, perhaps Wittgenstein could yet be proven correct.

The Society does not need to take a position on what was likely a casual remark of Wittgenstein to find interesting the notion that philosophy can be ‘done’ through fictional narratives, humorous or otherwise. In these explorations, we are grateful to have found fellow seekers: the team at Sci Phi Journal, to whom we are grateful for offering us this space to introduce ourselves to you, dear reader. If you’d like to get in touch, share ideas, or join our mailing list, you can do so here.

~


[1] https://clarkefoundation.org/arthur-c-clarke-biography/

[2] Norman Malcolm. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. https://archive.org/details/ludwigwittgenste0000unse_g5p0/page/28/mode/2up, 1966, 29

Intersidereal Aliyah And The Law Of Return

by Edmund Nasralla

I. Introduction: The Law of Return before the Age of Colonization[1]

Among the nation states which retained full political autonomy after the beginning of the Age of Colonization, the State of Israel alone maintained a policy of right of abode within its historical borders for the descendants of its citizens and those belonging to the Jewish people. The Law of Return (חוק השבות ), originally passed by the Knesset on 5 July 1950 (20 Tammuz 5710), established that, “Every Jew has the right to immigrate [to Israel]” (section 1). The law was amended several times in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to address questions of definition (who qualifies as a Jew, etc.), to establish rights for family members of Jewish immigrants to the State of Israel, and to curtail certain abuses.

The Age of Colonization and the concurrent establishment of the World Federation of States (Later the Old Earth Federation, henceforth “OEF”) posed, at first, no new legislative problems for the State of Israel. A substantial number of Israel’s citizens emigrated to the new colonies, most of them initially to the first human colony of Terra Nova in the Epsilon Eridani system. These maintained dual Israeli and OEF citizenship, and the first generation of their children were Israeli citizens in accordance with that country’s constitutional law. The expense and large amounts of time required to make the journey between Earth and the first colonies meant that, for all practical purposes, return was impossible. In the first four hundred years of galactic colonization, only fourteen cases of a vessel returning to Old Earth were recorded. Only one of them involved a ship which had reached Terra Nova. Three of them carried Israeli passengers, and although all of them carried at least one self-declared Jewish passenger, none of these passengers subsequently emigrated to Israel. There was consequently no legislation addressing intersidereal aliyah during this period.     

II. The El-Sayed Terminal and the amendment of Federation immigration law

In A.T. 2565, Prof. Geries El-Sayed of the École Polytechnique of France demonstrated the feasibility of intersidereal travel based on the principles of quantum entanglement. The old method of continuous acceleration, which had made the first colonies possible, was rendered obsolete, at least in theory. Another century would pass before the first El-Sayed Terminals could be built.[2]

The prospect of nearly-instantaneous travel between the colonized planets, however, pushed the OEF to propose new laws regulating intersidereal immigration to Old Earth. The Senate feared that an unrestricted right of return to the human home world might have catastrophic legal and economic consequences. The first major waves of emigration were financed by the asset forfeiture of the original colonists to the Federation, something which was very controversial at the time.[3] Would the descendants of such colonists have a legal basis for claiming restitution? What would become of the Old Earth’s economy if it were suddenly flooded with workers and goods from worlds beyond the solar system? The proposed Beskyttelse Act of A.T. 2568[4] stripped all emigrants of OEF and national citizenships on Old Earth and imposed a federal visa requirement for return, even for a temporary visit. All OEF member states, including the State of Israel, were expected to ratify the law.  

Yeshayahu Amsalem, the ceremonial President of Israel and a member of the country’s Orthodox majority, gave an impassioned speech at a plenary session of the OEF Senate in February of A.T. 2570, pleading for an exemption clause for the State of Israel, “…because the land itself is an integral part of the national and religious identity of the Jewish people.” The Beskyttelse Act effectively cut off a part of the diaspora from its ancestral homeland forever, he argued. Amsalem ended his speech with a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:4: “If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee.”

Unexpectedly, the Israeli motion was seconded by most Muslim member states. These wanted a similar exemption for those attending the hajj and desiring to visit other Muslim holy sites, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Israel. Even Knesset members representing the Arab citizens of Israel (about 30% of the population at that time) expressed their support. The Holy See also demanded that Christians be allowed to go on pilgrimage to Rome and various holy places on Old Earth, many of which happen to be within the borders of Israel. All these religious exemptions were passed,[5] in part because the OEF considered their implementation as a far distant—and in A.T. 2570 almost non-existent—problem.  

III. The Law of Return in the Age of Colonization

a. Before A.T. 2894

Many Jews subsequently entered Israel under the provisions of amendments §1-3 of the Beskyttelse Act. There were 300-1000 cases of intersidereal aliyah per year from the beginning of the twenty-ninth century. By that time, several important developments had occurred both in Israel and in the intersidereal Jewish diaspora.    

The Law of the Return was amended (amendment 5, A.T. 2730) to make being halakhically Jewish a requirement for immigration, with the authority for determining this being given to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. This amendment, the greatest restriction on Jewish immigration to the State of Israel ever imposed, essentially codified the jurisprudence surrounding the Law of Return at that time. The change caused less protest In Israel than might have been expected. The Orthodox majority had increased substantially by A.T. 2700, so that non-orthodox Jews (including all “hilonim”, or secular Jews) made up only 15% of the citizen population.  

The number of people of Jewish heritage living in the colonies officially outstripped the number of those on Old Earth in A.T. 2812. Most traced their ancestry to emigrants from the former United States or Europe, but a substantial minority (20%) had roots in Israel. Jewish emigrants established the New Haifa settlement on Terra Nova in A.T. 2692. Within two hundred years, it became one of the most important cities on Terra Nova and one of the largest in all the settled worlds. Quite unexpectedly, Terra Nova Hebrew[6] emerged as a lingua franca in the city, eventually becoming the main language used by the city’s non-Jewish majority.

The nature of Jewish religious observance in the colonies (usually quite secular) began to change dramatically after A.T. 2860. In that year, a religious movement, “The Numbered” (הממוספרים), began to rise to prominence on Terra Nova, led by a certain Moshe Glanz, known to his followers as “The Numberer” (הממספר).[7] Glanz, an obscure figure who does not appear to have been an observant Jew until his early thirties, declared himself to be Moshiach. He was initially dismissed by most of his contemporaries, but soon gained a following thanks to several purported miraculous healings which he worked in and around New Haifa. He was a gifted orator and polyglot who had managed to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish writings. By A.T. 2894 his movement had grown to around three million followers on several colonized worlds.  

b. Glanz et al. v. The Minister of the Interior (A.T. 2894)

Glanz had a peculiar interpretation of Olam Haba, the complex eschatological concept in Judaism of an ideal “world to come”. The Numberer declared that, as Moshiach, he alone could bring it about. To do so, he needed to “return”, together with all his followers, to the Land of Israel. Nearly a million Numbered attempted to enter Israel en masse in A.T. 2893, seeking citizenship under the Law of Return. They were denied permission, and thus could not obtain an OEF visa. The Numbered were denied citizenship by the Israeli Ministry of the Interior on the basis of an A.T. 1970 amendment to section 4A of the Law of Return, which stipulated that a Jew who voluntarily changes his religion loses the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. As the Numbered were considered converts to a different religion, they could not be granted citizenship.   

Glanz and his followers sued the following year, calling the decision by the Minister of the Interior illegal under the Basic Law of Israel. The Numbered were not members of a different religion, it was argued. To maintain the contrary position would be to define Judaism as a religion which does not believe in the possibility of the coming of Moshiach, Glanz’s claim in this regard being the only argument for considering his followers to be apostates. The court found against the Numbered. Glanz then appealed the decision to the OEF. A lower court refused to adjudicate the case because it did “not think itself competent to legislate questions of religious identity”, thus allowing the Israeli decision to stand.  

c. After A.T. 2894:

Glanz died under mysterious circumstances before his appeal could be heard by the OEF Supreme Court. The Numbered decreased in size after his death, though the members who remained became increasingly influential and devoted to the cause of their founder. Many of them continued to believe that Glanz was still alive, but in hiding, and considered their immigration to Israel as a religious duty to prepare the way for his reappearing. It is estimated that 350,000 Numbered acquired Israeli citizenship over the next decade by dissimulating their membership in the movement. This led to an amendment to the law of Return (amendment 7, A.T. 2910) which provided for the expulsion of Numbered who had obtained citizenship fraudulently. The amendment proved impossible to enforce, however, as it was exceedingly difficult to prove membership in the Numbered because of their commitment to secrecy.  

Glanz’s movement led to a renewed interest in Zionism and a certain popular revival of Jewish religious observance among the intersidereal diaspora, especially the observance of Shabbat, for which some Orthodox rabbis now consider the Numberer to have been a Tzadik. Today, though the Numbered are essentially extinct as an active religious force, millions of Israelis claim to be descended from them. Some historians trace the political motivations for the last amendment to the Law of Return (amendment 8, A.T. 3126, a repeal of the restrictive amendment 5) to their latent influence.


[1] This piece was originally published in Old Earth: An Encyclopedia of Terrestrial Human History, as part of the entry “Israel, State of”, Vol 321, col. 47-269, New Haifa University Press (New Haifa, Terra Nova: A.T. 4731). It is republished here in an adapted form with the kind permission of New Haifa University Press.

[2] For an exciting and often humorous account of the first successful El-Sayed terminal trip between Old Earth and Terra Nova, see: Marion Flanders, A Small World After All: The First “Baton” Terminal and the Age of Colonization, New Haifa University Press (New Haifa, Terra Nova: A.T. 3127).     

[3] See: Gideon McArthur (ed.), When You Look at the Stars, Remember Me: The First Colonists of Terra Nova in Their Own Words. New Haifa University Press (New Haifa, Terra Nova: A.T. 4491).    

[4] OEF-Gesetzhandbuch 407.62. The law, meaning “protection”, is so named because it was originally proposed by the Norwegian delegation in the Senate.  

[5] Ibid., Zusatzartikel §1-9.

[6] This dialect preserved aspects of Modern Hebrew for centuries after they had been lost or changed on Old Earth. Some of its salient features are a high usage of English loan words, pronunciation of “ר”as a uvular fricative, and an SVO word order. Old Earth Modern Hebrew, under the influence of Classical and Levantine Arabic, eventually moved to a rhotic “ר” and adopted a more frequent use of the VSO word order, making it more similar to Classical Hebrew. See art. “Hebrew” in Old Earth, vol. 296, col. 1121-1834.

[7] The name of the sect and its leader were a reference to God’s command to Abraham in Genesis 15:5 to “number the stars”. See art. “The Numbered” in Old Earth, vol. 428 col. 76-99. 

~

Bio:

Edmund Nasralla is an American writer living in Europe. His job requires him to think often about religious questions. Occasionally, it also leaves him time to number the stars. This is his first published piece.

Philosophy Note:

Israel’s Law of Return has always fascinated me because of its implications for the question of Jewish identity. What, precisely, makes one a Jew? What is the relationship between ethnic Judaism and religious observance? These questions are complicated here on Earth, and are debated within Israel. How would Jewish identity change in an age of human expansion to other planets. What would happen if the Law of Return were tested, in the distant future, by a form of Judaism which had developed on another world?
On a larger scale, I am intrigued by the notion of colonized planets eventually surpassing Earth in population. How would the nations of our planet deal with the issue of people wanting to “move back” to an ancestral home world that they have never known? Could there be something like a human Law of Return for Earth generally?

Affinities Between Science Fiction And Music

by Mircea Băduț

Preamble

Auditory concepts such as the “music of the spheres”, which we may nowadays associate with the speculative mode, have deep historical roots reaching back to the works of Pythagoras (6th century BC) and later explored by Plato (4th century BC). Johannes Kepler’s ‘Harmonices Mundi’ (1619) further emphasized this idea, while it was tangentially touched upon in literary works such as Hermann Hesse’s ‘Klein and Wagner’ (1919). The symphonic suite ‘The Planets’, composed by Gustav Holst in 1914-1917, should also be mentioned here.

Yet I would argue that it was the electronic music boom of the 1970s and 1980s which had brought the intersection between music and speculative fiction to the fore, with artists such as Vangelis leading the way. This was made possible by the capabilities of electronic synthesizers to sonically create an atmosphere that human culture (and perhaps human instinct too) assumed to be associated with cosmic space, and this phenomenon occurred during a time when society was experiencing excitement and curiosity about our expanding presence in the cosmos, both physically and intellectually.

I believe electronic music captured the listeners of that era for two main reasons. Firstly, because the exoticism of the sounds emitted by electronic instruments, often characterized by long notes and in vague harmonies, had a profound effect on inducing a unique mental state. Secondly, owing to the radicality of the distinction from pop music (which would not have been evident in a comparison with symphonic/classical music, where the modernist branch had already reached somewhat similar sonorities). In other words, this new music conquered the listeners of those decades (in which I also grew up) through its progressive, renewing character.

 Judged from a musicological perspective, the electronic music of the early decades could often be considered as minimalist, occasionally obsessive (in its repetition or thematic dosage), and at times deliberately psychedelic. (The latter effect is often achieved by relying on an obstinato of melodic theme that foreshadows either an accumulation of dramatic potential, akin to the musical tension build-up used in the symphonic genre, or by a transcendence into oneirism.) And, of course, if it had been compared to the peaks of creation in classical music or in the jazz and rock of that era, it would have proved itself somewhat immature. However, much like the merger of science fiction into mainstream literature, electronic music targeted a different segment of society, and thus, they did not necessarily compete with each other.)

However, this essay does not end at electronic music, and will try also to cover, as significant landmarks, other kinds of musical creation close to the idea of science fiction. So, to set the scene, here is my initial proposal for a list of milestones of the ‘SF – music’ nexus:

» 1964 – Probably the first sci-fi song;

» 1969 – David Bowie releases the single ‘Space Oddity’;

» 1972 – David Bowie releases the album ‘The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars’;

» 1978 – ‘The War of the Worlds’, as musical version created by Jeff Wayne;

» 1976 – The electronic music album ‘Albedo 0.39’ composed and performed by Vangelis;

» 1977 – The electronic music album ‘Spiral’ composed and performed by Vangelis;

» 1978 – The electronic music album ‘Die Mensch-Maschine’ (‘The Man-Machine’), by Kraftwerk;

» 1982 – The soundtrack of the film ‘Blade Runner’ (Ridley Scott), composed and performed by Vangelis.

1. Probably the first sci-fi song

The reader may be surprised or thrilled to come across a reference from the vibrant era of the hippy movement and its music. It pertains to a pop-rock song titled “In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus).” Composed by Rick Evans in 1964, this song achieved the remarkable feat of reaching number 1 on the US ‘Billboard Hot 100’ chart in 1969, followed by securing the top spot on the ‘UK Singles Chart’ later that year. However, the musical duo known as ‘Zager and Evans’, who created this remarkable hit, faded from the music scene like a passing comet, earning the status of a “one-hit wonder” before disbanding in 1971.

“In the Year 2525 (Exordium & Terminus)” / Rick Evans / 1964 / ‘Zager and Evans’

“In the year 2525, if man is still alive

If woman can survive, they may find

In the year 3535

Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie

Everything you think, do and say

Is in the pill you took today (…)[1]

Even though the song was definitely noted in its time, we probably cannot nominate it as a kind of avant-la-lettre “sci-fi music”. But I consider that it deserves to be recognized as a significant reference both for the concrete science fiction text (including the coordinate of anticipation, of utopia), and for the fact that the band ‘Zager and Evans’ achieves this clear message using ordinary instrumentation (i.e. without resorting to any kind of sound fireworks).

2. The classic ‘music – SF literature’ connection reference

“Jeff Wayne’s Musical Version of The War of the Worlds” was originally a studio musical album (in the rock/pop/progressive genre) conceived, created, produced and recorded by musician Jeff Wayne (CBS Records, 1978), which would be followed by many reissues, performances, tours and reinterpretations. As we expect, the album is inspired from the novel ‘The War of the Worlds’ written by H.G. Wells, and is presented as a rock opera, arranged instrumentally with a rock band (guitars, bass, drums/percussion, organ/synthesizer) but also with a considerable addition of a classical/symphonic orchestra (including strings), as well as with narrative inserts (explanatory introduction and interludes, performed by the voice of the actor Richard Burton). The narrative thread of the rock opera is inspired by that of the classic sci-fi story, but it must be emphasized that some of the musical sequences (derived from acts of the story) led to the creation of songs of extraordinary musicality, thanks to both the melodic composition and very successful interpretations. In the years that followed (and to this day) this album was very successful, both in the charts (singles “Forever Autumn” and “The Eve of the War”) and in terms of sales.

By analyzing this musical production from a listener’s perspective, several noteworthy aspects can be observed. Firstly, the orchestration is “architectonic” in nature, featuring monumental sonorities that are impressively paired with melodic dramatization. Secondly, unconventional soundscapes and psychological stimulation are achieved, notably through the use of synthesizers, albeit without excessive exploitation. Additionally, the “voicebox guitar effect” is worth mentioning, although it had already become a recognized technique in rock concerts. A subtler element, yet a personal favorite, is the metal-body electric guitar played by Chris Spedding. This particular guitar, crafted by James Trussart and modeled after the famous Gibson Les Paul but with a hollow body made of steel sheet, creates a unique and intriguing sound.

The original album, subsequent reissues, concerts, tours, reinterpretations, and various editions on formats such as DVD, CD, and even SACD have all achieved tremendous success worldwide. While visionary projects are known to have the potential for great success in theory, the process of starting them is rarely easy. The realization of the 1978 album was indeed a challenging endeavor. Jeff Wayne conceived the idea, developed the concept and acquired the rights to incorporate narrative ideas from H.G. Wells’ science fiction novel. However, he faced significant difficulties in finding financiers for the album’s production expenses and persuading musicians to participate. He had even posed the question to musicians regarding their preferred method of payment: a fixed and immediate amount or a share in the future proceeds from the property rights? Unfortunately, to their detriment, the musicians chose the skeptical option in terms of their financial well-being.

It is worth noting that this remarkable science fiction musical creation was brought to life without overly relying on electronic artifice. That, however, was set to change in subsequent decades…

3. Tangible and consistent landmarks of the ‘music – SF’ connection

The first key date relates to a breakthrough in the material prerequisites for electronic music: in 1964 Robert Arthur Moog (1934–2005) invented the Moog musical synthesizer, and in 1970 he also released a portable model, the Minimoog, which would radically influence the music of the 20th century. (Alongside, of course, other notable manufacturers of synthesizers and electronic organs, such as Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Oberheim, EMS, ARP, Elka and Fairlight.)

Below I present the subsequent milestones in another succinct list (without going into detail where the names have become classics), no longer focusing on the names of musical productions, but rather the individuals (or groups) who made them:

» Vangelis, through the albums from 1975 to 1984;

» Tangerine Dream, through the albums from 1974 to 1987;

» Isao Tomita, esp. the album ‘Electric Samurai’ (Switched on Rock) from 1972;

» Klaus Schulze, through the albums Cyborg (1973), Timewind (1975), Moondawn (1976);

» Kraftwerk, through the albums released between 1977-1981 (The Man-Machine, Computer World);

» Jean Michel Jarre, through the albums Oxygène (1976) and Équinoxe (1978);

» Robert Fripp – renowned both for his compositional style (sometimes exploiting asymmetric rhythms and using classical or folkloric melodic motifs) and for his early innovations in the generation of unconventional sounds (such as the sound-delay system using magnetic tape).[2]

For a wider geographical context, electronic music also appeared in the Soviet Union, such as these examples:

• the band Zodiak, (USSR/Latvia), with the albums ‘Disco Alliance’ (1980) and ‘Music in the Universe’ (1982);

• the album ‘Metamorphoses – Electronic Interpretations Of Classical And Modern Music’ (Melodiya record label, USSR, 1980).

But perhaps the most interesting exemplifying corpus for the ‘music – SF’ nexus derives (although not explicitly) from so-called rock “super-groups” of the years 1965-1980 – Pink Floyd; Genesis; Manfred Mann’s Earth Band; Emerson, Lake and Palmer; Yes; The Alan Parsons Project; Supertramp; Marillion; Electric Light Orchestra; Brian Eno/Roxy Music; Mike Oldfield; etc –, which impress both by their sophistication (hence the alternative denomination of ‘art-rock’) and by their progressive function of cultural/spiritual re-toning (hence the denomination of ‘prog-rock’). Furthermore, numerous artists, even those not typically associated with art-rock or progressive-rock genres, have occasionally crafted songs that feature progressive sounds and nuances.

4. A rapprochement between (sub)genres (cultural and musical)

We observe that while the previous discussion began with electronic music, due to its inherent connection to science fiction, this intersection naturally expands to encompass other related musical genres. This tends to be driven by songs and productions that stand out for their unconventional and progressive sounds and messages. Therefore, it is fitting to include or at least explore genres such as art-rock, progressive rock, jazz fusion, and even classical/symphonic music, as they share connections and influences with speculative fiction.

Progressive music offers alternative perspectives and enhances traditional forms, leading to a continuous elevation of artistic standards over the years. It has even influenced pop music, which often fails to appreciate the achievements in quality and compositional complexity of previous generations. Each new generation tends to “reinvent the wheel” with a certain casualness. In contrast, composers in “heavy” music are more inclined to study the classics and acknowledge their influence even if they create in new musical currents or subgenres. Moreover, in addition to the fact that progressive can be understood as a reform or as a detachment from an ordinary/vulgar flow, the dichotomy between progressive rock and pop-rock (intentional in essence, assumed either voluntarily or instinctively) can also be seen in another perspective: with the progressive, music becomes conceptual, i.e. intended rather for actual audition (an audition for audition itself) than for easy entertainment and somatic well-being (we might say, “moving thought/spirit rather than muscle/skeleton” ). In order to build its conceptual (or experimental) character, such music frequently resorts to ‘fusion’, both from the perspective of orchestration/sounds and from a rhythmic/melodic perspective, with inspiration and mixture from jazz, symphonic/classical music, or even from world-music (folk).

Experts in music may argue that these “progressive mechanisms” are naturally experienced in modern jazz. This is not necessarily a negative development, as it allows for the incorporation of multiple genres within the concept of spiritual-cultural regeneration and evolution. And now we promptly return to our cultural parallel, because speculative fiction often embodies similar ideas and proposals, justifying the close affinity with progressive music. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, in the context of the present discussion, musical progressiveness primarily concerns music itself, while science fiction tends to be more focused on stimulating thought rather than solely on the literary craft.

Music connoisseurs could also draw our attention to the fact that during the boom periods of the species concerned here (sci-fi, electronic music, progressive rock) in symphonic music there were already currents and subgenres that used “progressive mechanisms”: neoclassicism, modernism, chromatisme, serialism (dodecaphonic music), post-modernism, (so-called) contemporary music, experimental music, post-tonal music; respectively with the names of composers such as Gustav Mahler, Claude Debussy, Dmitri Shostakovich, Ottorino Respighi, Anton Webern, Pierre Louis Joseph Boulez et al. In fact, many progressive rock music productions have been inspired (using themes or approaches) by classical/symphonic music (Jethro Tull; Rush; Procol Harum; Beatles; Moody Blues; The Who; King Crimson; Jeff Beck; Rick Wakeman; John Lord; Deep Purple; Queen; Led Zeppelin; Sting; Peter Gabriel; etc). And if we call to mind the soundtrack of the film ‘2001 Space Odyssey’ (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) – a cinematic touchstone in SF culture – then we will once more recognize the proximity to classical music, but we may also admit that a special sound atmosphere can be created with classical formulas and acoustic musical instruments. (And while on this subject, if we listen to “Also sprach Zarathustra,” the symphonic poem composed by Richard Strauss in 1896 in its entirety, we will notice that it was very modern for its time.)

And we end this section with a reference to ‘Firebird’, a symphonic music concert composed by Igor Stravinsky on a fantastic theme, and which mnemonically leads us to the Japanese animated film ‘Firebird 2772: Love’s Cosmozone’ (director/screenplay: Osamu Tezuka and Taku Sugiyama; music: Yasuo Higuchi; 1980).

5. Music, beauty and the digital future

In order to complement some ideas in this essay, it is worth noting that in its emerging era, electronic music was created with instruments that did not work digitally (with numerical signal encoding) but analogically. These were sound synthesizers (with electronic tubes, then with transistors and later with integrated circuits), audio sequencers (such as ‘CV/gate’) or other more or less artisanal devices (Frippertronics; theremin/termenvox; Fender Rhodes piano; Ondes Martenot; tape loops, tape delay, musique concrète). It was not until the 1980s that the way of digitally recording, processing and generating music would be opened.

But what is the essential difference between analogue and digital sound? (We tacitly accept that music, of whatever genre it may be, means sound. In fact, a multitude of sounds, emitted and succeeded according to harmonic/aesthetic laws.) These two terms, somehow antagonistic, were defined in relation to each other. Initially – in the days of vacuum tubes and transistors – electronics did not have a second name, but only after the advent of signal coding technologies, would the field bifurcate into (1) analog electronics (working with continuous signal) and (2) digital electronics (working with discontinuous/discrete signals). (The digital electronics are also called ‘logic electronics’, because the topology and operation of their circuits correspond to a desired logic.)

The transformation of the natural/analog signal into a digital signal involves two processes: (1) sampling and (2) quantization. Sound sampling means that we read (i.e. take a sample from) the original signal at every fraction of a second (a fraction having, let us say, 2×10-5 seconds, as in the case of CD-Audio), and quantization implies that we will measure the amplitude of each sample and transform it into a number (respectively into a digital code, i.e. a group of bits). This transformation is called analog-to-digital conversion (ADC). Of course, when it is necessary to listen those digitally recorded signals, they must go through a digital-to-analog conversion (DAC), which is somewhat the reverse of the one briefly described above.

Of the two processes applied to the digitization of music, sampling is guilty of the greatest loss when recording the original sound, and this is because in those unread time intervals (intervals of 2×10-5 seconds) the audio signal nonetheless continues, especially if it is a polyphonic signal, as happens in music where several instruments play quasi-simultaneously, and each instrument actually emits many simultaneous sounds. (Even when a single musical note is emitted, the sound having the frequency corresponding to that note is accompanied by a myriad of other sounds – secondary/additional harmonics – that make up the ‘timbre of the instrument’.) In fact, from a Hi-Fi (High-Fidelity) perspective, the beginnings of music digitization were unfortunate because it was not understood then that Nyquist’s Theorem (which defined a minimum for the sampling rate of signals) was not suitable for music sounds.

A similar insufficiency at the small time scale is the reason why digital synthesis sounds (even when embodying traditional musical instruments) are poorer than sounds produced by acoustic instruments (instruments that produce sound by physical vibration: either a parts of their composition, or the air passing through them), an aspect that we can all analyze if we do small experiments by listening carefully to musical instruments or comparing quality music recordings.

Humans, with our analogue ears, have a natural affinity for music. The appreciation and recognition of beauty, including the auditory one, involve two fundamental factors in human beings. The first factor is our biological and innate perception, which is passed down through genetics. The second factor is our cultural perception, shaped by environmental influences, such as imitation, assimilation, and education (i.e. developed through the traditions and customs of the people among, and places where, we have grown up or currently reside). Thus, we have two filters through which our perception of music is shaped: a biological and a psycho-social one.

The influence of the biological filter can be documented by the fact that certain sounds (specific combinations/aggregations of frequencies) can evoke distinct physiological states, either beneficial or adverse, with or without involvement of the psyche. On the other hand, the psycho-social conditioning can be illustrated by the awareness that there were (and still are) peoples in the world who divide the musical octave into intervals other than the twelve we commonly use, and who build the rhythms in other measures than we do. Therefore, if we were to listen to music indigenous to such cultures, we might feel a sense of confusion. Thus, the concepts for musical aesthetics developed by an extraterrestrial civilization, if we were to ever encounter one, might very well leave us utterly baffled.


[1] https://lyrics.lyricfind.com/lyrics/zager-evans-in-the-year-2525-2

[2] The author recommends the ‘Discipline’ album for edification.

~

Bio:

Mircea Băduț is a Romanian writer and engineer. He wrote eleven books on informatics and six books of fictional prose and essays. He also wrote over 500 articles and essays for various magazines and publications in Romania and around the world.

1 2 3
Sci Phi Journal
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.