On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:33:57 +0100, "Jani"
dsl.pipex.com> wrote:>"Ken Andrews"
degook.com> wrote in message >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:53:53 +0100, "Jani"
dsl.pipex.com> wrote:>>>"Ken Andrews"
degook.com> wrote in message>
>>>> I believe wholeheartedly in Heinlein's statement.
>>>
>>>Which one?
>>
>> In this regard, this one:
>>
>> A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
>> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
>> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
>> give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
>> problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
>> efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
>
>Ah, yes, I'm fond of that one as well. Not that I can *do* half of them, but
>they're good aspirations to have.
A human being should be able to:
change a diaper Done
plan an invasion Done (if you count wargames)
butcher a hog
conn a ship Done (fishing trawlers)
design a building Done
write a sonnet Sort of. Haiku, limericks, and simple
pentameter
balance accounts Done
build a wall Done
set a bone
comfort the dying Done, unfortunately
take orders Done (with poor grace)
give orders Done
cooperate Done
act alone Done
solve equations Done
analyze a new problem Done
pitch manure Done
program a computer Done
cook a tasty meal Done (dinner tonight was tomato /
basil spaghettini and shrimp, with
a light cheddar sauce)
fight efficiently Done (if hitting them when they aren't
looking counts as "efficiently")
die gallantly Not if I have anything to say about it. I'm
going kicking and screaming.
Specialization is for insects.
In re sonnets, Bujold had a good line:
Mia Maz glanced aside in concern at his muffled snort. "Are you all
right?"
"Yes. Sorry," Miles whispered. "I'm just having an attack of
limericks."
>> Some others that apply to the current discussion(s):
>> (Note that I don't necessarily agree with all of these):
>>
>> One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a
>> null word.
>
>Agreed; competent witches tend to have a lot in common with engineers.
So you disagree with Talesin, and believe that witchcraft is natural,
not supernatural?
>> Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.
>> Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
>
>On face value, yes. What I've noticed if one looks deeper into the
>mythologies, though, is that some of the things which would have a human
>thrown in jail (or at the very least, snubbed by the neighbours) aren't
>supposed to be taken as models for human behaviour anyway.
>
>
>> I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the
>> one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a
>> universe.
>
>Hmm ... I think that's one for christians, really.
Oh? Not for Jews, Moslems, or any other religion which (at least
supposedly) require faith in the deity?
>> Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are
>> invented nonsense.
>
>I think I prefer Pratchett's version: sin is treating people like things.
>But I'm not much of a one for 'sin' as a concept, anyway.
In "Ethan of Athos", there's a similar statement:
Ethan stared at Millisor's bonds, shaken. "I'm sorry ..." God the
Father, was he actually apologizing to Millisor? "No, Colonel. I
remember Okita. I can understand a man being a killer, I think. But a
bored killer?"
"Okita is only a tool. The surgeon's knife."
"Then your service has turned a man into a thing." An old quote
drifted through Ethan's memory: By their fruits you shall know them...
I believe in sin. I believe in evil, too. (Of course, I pretty much
have to, don't I?)
Sin and evil are two different cats. It's when people start treating
sin the way they treat evil (or committing evil the way they commit
sins) that problems arise. Me, I like sin. Sin can be *fun*! But
evil... nah, evil's a problem.
>> The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is
>> that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
>> wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by
>> their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this
>> flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to
>> bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least
>> productive industry in all history.
>
>Heh. Yes, he has a point there.
>
>
>> However, the one that I believe in the most is this one:
>>
>> Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are
>> utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfil
>> obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail
>> anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die.
>> Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.
>>
>> But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of
>> you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is
>> easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants
>> "just a few minutes of your time, please - this won't take long." Time
>> is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few.
>> If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such
>> requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites
>> will use up 100 percent of your time - and squawk for more!
>>
>> So learn to say No - and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise
>> you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work,
>> and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble
>> away your life and leave none of it for you.
>>
>> (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favour for a friend,
>> or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don't do it because
>> it is "expected" of you.)
>
>That's an incredibly hard one to follow, partly because most people are
>brought up to believe that doing things for others is a Good Thing, will be
>rewarded in heaven, or whatever. So they never really learn how to judge
>what *kind* of obligations should be taken on, let alone assess their own
>abilities to fulfil them, and in the meantime they're spinning around like a
>top trying to cope with all the stuff everyone else says they *ought* to be
>doing.
Yes, it's hard to follow. The time it was hardest, I still managed to
do it, and in certain regards it's hurt ever since.
