wyrd -- GFD: Those Who Crossed Over

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu April 17, 2008 18:39:10
Author: greenmann
Subject: wyrd
In reply to: Comicality 's message, "I could see some of that being true..." on Thu April 17, 2008 02:43:19

"But I was writing a story (Still am, actually), where a being from another planet said that mankind's fundamental flaw was his amazing ability to lie to himself. And if that's the case, when you say that most people have a god heart, just how do we measure a 'good heart'? By what standards? And in what situation?"

Well, assuming that the one with the telepathy was still at least marginally human, then the above "flaw" should apply to him as well, and he may well lie to himself at least enough to pay more attention to some things as he is reading other's thoughts, and ignore things that may turn out to be significant later. As i said in my other post on this thread, i think people are too complex to be so easily pigeonholed and easily predictable. Some more than others of course, but I do think its true.

And as far as what is good... well, I could take the easy way out and say that is conditional, as you seem to be implying, or at least cultural (in that, different cultures, or at least different religious backgrounds, tend to have slightly different criteria for what is "good") but I think there are certain common threads that do apply. A good person is generally pretty easy to spot regardless of the culture in which he is placed; compassionate, strong in his convictions and willing to defend them (one of the many definitions of courage), and if I dare say, generally able to be him/her self, though maybe not without apology. There may be other traits as well, but these are the ones that come to mind.

So what makes someone bad? I think it is intent... laws aside, I think thievery is evil in that it is an intentional invasion of the privacy of others and their right to their own property. When you steal, your not just taking someone's stuff, your to some extent taking a piece of their privacy away from them. Rape is more personal and personalized, but in a way thievery is a little bit like the same thing. Ask someone who has had their house broken into, and you may get some of the same words used to describe how they feel about it that rape victims use to describe their experience. Its certainly by no means the same level of trauma, but its related I think. It's the willful intent to do harm that I think is evil. Its not a totally black and white thing, a schoolyard bully is certainly intent on causing harm and is a little "evil" in that sense, but not as evil as the rapist intent on his next victim.

So, even if the need for food in some ways gives us compassion for the one doing the stealing, the one stolen from generally does NOT feel so compassionate, though perhaps he can be persuaded to feel so. Perspective is everything in that sense, I guess. The intent to harm may not be deliberate, or direct, but its there.

"I think that I would be scared to find out that the cold precision of every decision wa completely selfish and predatory at heart. When the 'interpretation' of people's intentions was peeled away...we'd discover that we were just as cold and calculating as any other savage beast fighting for their own survival. With the added bonus that mankind fights just as hard for its 'comfort'."

I must say, this is a rather bleak assumption to make, lol. I personally think the truth is far more complex for many of us, and the reasons for doing things more a mixture of self preservation and altruism. You know the old image of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other? I think mentally, that is more likely what you would find if you could delve into a person's mind to see their true thoughts and feelings. In any given situation, you may find one or the other holding more sway over your decisions, but they are both there. And incidentally, I don't personally necessarily think that those self preservation instincts are "evil" in the Christian sense of the word either.

Ok, now (hoping that you all bear with my novel length posts) on to the question of determinism that has crept into this thread... I find it interesting that a question of "what is evil" has sprung this argument. It has always seemed to me that for evil to be present, there must be free will, and that free will is incompatible with determinism. After all, if it is predetermined that you will do something, you have no choice but to do it, and therefore, the question of evil seems an intrinsic part of your nature, and therefore not a choice at all. Its kind of a tautalogy... a kind of logical paradox. Without the choice to do evil or good, why bother even asking the question? You are just fulfilling your nature. In fact, this has always been one of the things that bothers me about the whole vampire genre, and the question about "if you don't have a choice but to do evil to survive, is it evil?" seems like such a harsh way of putting things.

Be that as it may, several of the posts in this thread get really close to describing what the ancient celts and norse would call "wyrd". This is a concept similar to the hindu concept of karma, but a bit more complex. Wyrd is often translated as "fate", but not in the sense of things being determined to be definitely "x". Its more seen as a path or a process you have to live through, a set of guiding principles or conditions if you will. It means that a hero was predisposed to do something, and that if he follows his wyrd he will do "x", but there is no certainty that he can't do something else if he either willfully decides to follow a different path (usually with the threat of the wrath of the gods in consequence), or somehow is lead astray (by "evil" or whatnot in some stories). In fact, trickster gods such as Loki are often there in the old stories to test your resolve and commitment to your wyrd or path. This is certainly a different way to view evil than most Judeo-Christian scholars would look at it.

Prophecy then is the precognition that certain events follow the natural progression of a kind of collective wyrd... kind of like looking at a tree, seeing what direction the branch is growing and predicting that in the future there will be shade under the tree there.

Its interesting that many cultures talk about prophesy in terms of weaving- many threads making a pattern, and if you can see the pattern clearly, you can predict the future pattern. And these predictions are not always accurate, or so clear as to be immediately recognizable in the real world. The ancient sybells and oracles generally couched their predictions in random or even deliberately obtuse, poetic language that left things decidedly up to interpretation. Nostradamus used rhyme and meter, Edward Case used a kind of stream of consciousness (well, he was usually asleep anyway, lol). But the actual predictions were usually seen more after the fact than before even for the more concrete predictions.

I dunno how that affects your story, but generally, I don't think IRL that prophecy necessarily means things are totally determined. And its amazing how much vague language can be interpreted. People have an amazing ability to perceive patterns. Like the game Jeapordy, once you have the answer, it's sometimes easy to see the question. That doesn't mean that when you only have the question in front of you, there aren't more than one answer possible. The more complex the question, the more different answers possible. What's more complex than human nature?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Wow....will definitely have to comment more on this when I get a chance... -- Comicality, Tue May 06, 2008 19:50:49