Philosophy

You’re Already Dead Which Is Why You’re Alive

by

My friend Serdar chews over the issue of coping with death and that some people discuss death as a “change of form” for the sake of comfort.  That’s something I’ve considered, much as he does, from the various Buddhist points of view.

As Pynchon notes, we’re made to be immortal and we die, it’s really kind of strange to us.  We can vaguely conceive of a forever we don’t get, and face the inevitables on the road of life: old age, sickness, and death.  It’s in our media, from Walter White discovering nothing is permanent to a young Bruce Wayne facing the brutality of death.  I think we’re weirdly fascinated by death because of the icky, sticky, inevitable quality.

In many Buddhist teachings, from which I’ve learned much, one may be further stymied by both talk of reincarnation and of the fact there is no permanent self, of the importance of morality in an ever changing world.  What seems to be paradox in one way, I think, is a a sign that we’re happy by reconciling things – the Middle Path, as it were.

We’re going to die.  It’s inevitable.  We know it early on and we fight it until our dying day.  Everything dies – and we know this.

At the same time, we change.  We’re always dying.  The child you were twenty years ago is as gone as you will be when you’re put in the grave.  Death is just The Big Change on top of a life of change.

When we look at that change that’s always happening, we find we’re really fuzzy around the edges.  Where “I” begin and end, who “I” am isn’t that well defined.  Defined enough to discuss and to be, but still a bit fuzzy.

We’re aware of how we became the way we are, and vaguely aware of how our actions have repercussions – in short, how they live on after us. We’re not some little man holed up in a castle in our heads – everything, everything we do has an effect.  The term “Projected Karma” – that which forms – seems quite an apt term for it.

We’re always changing and always making changes yet have this sense of “I”.  We’re incredible fragile and yet we can have huge repercussions with a single action.

I find that the more we look into the fact we are impermanent creatures who are always leaving their mark on the world, one can find a peaceful reconciliation in our own humanity.  We don’t have to take ourselves so seriously, and in turn we can live our lives because what we have now is valuable; with our barriers down we can also find our social instincts to be more satisfying and find some sanity among people.  We also can take responsibility for our actions, live consciously, knowing that we’re choosing the results to come from what we do.  We can really live, even if we don’t like all of what’s going on and how it’s going to end.

Contemplating our own, inevitable death is troublesome and raises many paradoxes – but exploring paradoxes helps us resolve them.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, publishes books on career and culture at http://www.informotron.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.

 

The Loss of Cool Futurism: Disunity

by

Serdar and I were recently’ discussing the revival/return of Omni magazine. If you’re not familiar with Omni then you’re . . . probably younger than I am.  So stop playing your music so loud and get off my lawn.

Anyway, Omni was one of those publications that had a theme of what I call “cool futurism”, of the amazing stuff we’d see, of soaring cities and great technology and a better world. It was hip and happening and often positive. Cool futurism is the kind of thing you see in Star Trek TOS, in speculations on future architecture, on imagining how we’ll solve disease or poverty – not naive, but, well, “Cool”.

It’s cool to make things better. Cool to imagine awesome things we can make.

It just doesn’t seem to be that popular anymore in America. So I began asking what happened, and you’ll be utterly shocked to hear there’s a blog post about it to follow. Probably several.

First of all, I think Cool Futurism is gone because there’s no sense of unity or potential unity.

Read more

Sameness, Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Building Nothing

by

I’ve often remarked that I don’t read much SF anymore, or really watch it for that matter. Sure I watch some stuff here and there, or some anime, but there’s not much out there that makes me want to dedicate time to a series or a book. Bad SF and the fact real life is often more SF-like have been a deterrent to me. “Psycho-Pass” was an exception as it was intriguing and really hit that sweet spot of psychology, sociology, and technology.

But I will often watch “very light” SF and fantasy, usually for pure entertainment. It’s brain-on-hold stuff in most cases. Even then, fantasy seems to be . . . samey.

I’ve been thinking as of late what is missing in all of this? What is going on? Hollywood is making the same film over and over, and apparently conspiring to destroy Ryan Reynonld’s career.

Actually, the very sameness gets to me. Sameness is stagnant. Sameness is stuff not happening.

SF often has this problem when it’s a pile of tropes or when technology really is just magic with a few buttons glued on. It’s all the same.

Fantasy is bad about this as well, and I think fantasy is more vulnerable to it. Fantasy is often ancient magic and old gods and prophecies and such. I get tired of chosen ones and destinies and the like because it’s all the same. It’s all repetitious.

There’s no sense of agency, of building, of making.

This is probably why a lot of the modern fantasy and urban fantasy leaves me cold. Warmed over chosen-one plots, half-baked conspiracies, parades of demons and vampires and the usual stuff. A core that is often about cycles and with no sense of agency, and repetitious. Throw that mess into the Hollywood blender and . . . yech. No wonder people are bored.

What I miss from SF is a sense of building a future, of wonder, of construction, of creation, of agency.

This is one thing I enjoyed about Pacific Rim (which is SF light, frankly). It’s about people doing stuff. Monsters show up so we build war machines to punch them in the face. We want to know more about the monsters so research is done. PR is about people making things happen, often inside gigantic robots – but also face-to-face.

This is why I enjoyed editing Serdar’s “Flight of the Vajra” – and I say this sincerely and not as a plug. His hero is an engineer, who things, hacks, and engineers his way out of problems. Other characters take control of their lives. Agency is a core part of the book.

I’d like to see more good SF. More stuff about knowledge and applying it and agency.

I live in Silicon Valley. I live science fiction. I am science fiction. I do science fiction.

I want to see stuff about doing. Not following a script. Not things being happened to.

Agency.

– Steven Savage

Steven Savage is a Geek 2.0 writer, speaker, blogger, and job coach.  He blogs on careers at http://www.musehack.com/, nerd and geek culture at http://www.nerdcaliber.com/, and does a site of creative tools at http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. He can be reached at https://www.stevensavage.com/.