Science vs Mysticism? / Kipper's Game
Creator: Barbara Ehrenreich
Played by: wimsey
Game II Core Wave: "Ancient Ideas in Modern
Times" or "Time Transcendent Ideas."
How many times have I chastised myself because I did no follow my "gut" feeling or my intuitive response. On the other hand, how often have I experienced failure because I didn't focus on the evidence and facts before making a decision. I would guess I am not alone in this and am experiencing a timeless dichotomy. Is there a human preference in technique for the gathering of truths or do we undulate between mysticism and science depending on perceived successes. In other words, the revered leader is the one who accumulates the truths that result in a well fed tribe regardless of his choice in method.
From a review of KIPPER'S GAME. Review by Ram Samudra
Della Markson, who's Kipper's (aka Steve Markson) mom is dumped by her husband Leo. Alone, she moves from day to day in a daze with no apparent reason to exist. In the past, she had devoted her life to raising her son---but he too leaves her. She blames herself for her son's action, but only in the end does she realise that Kipper left her to program a computer game---one that would stimulate the pleasure centre in the brain directly, thus making it the most addictive game known to man. Why bother with sex, or other orgasmic experiences, if the pleasure centre can be stimulated directly. One could do this forever, physically leading the life of a vegetable, but mentally experiencing mutiple orgasms.
So what is it about the game that stimulates the pleasure centre? Ehrenreich plays on man's quest for knowledge as the ultimate aphrodisiac. This is evident in the way she depicts science as the ultimate learning experience, but carefully hidden from the mainstream populace by camouflaging it as a tedious enterprise. The reason people gather knowledge in this novel is even more way out; it is so extra-terrestrial life forms can learn about us. To summarise: Kipper writes a game that stimulates the pleasure centre, by encapsulating the human experience of questioning and learning, so extra-terrestrials can learn more about us when they come across the game. Puts Gibson to shame, doesn't it?
Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking post.
My first thought regarding the distinction between science and mysticism is a question. Is there really a fundamental distinction? Aren't these two more alike than they are different? Perhaps this is because of my natural inclination against confrontation, and toward seeing the similarities in things. Or maybe it is because it seems to me that science and mysticism have at times seemed indistinguishable, and the more science learns, the more questions it raises. Quantum physics is a perfect example of science bearing out what mysticism has been telling us for centuries.
It's like the debate between creation and evolution. To me, the acceptance of one does not rule out the other. Perhaps science and mysticism are just two sides of the yin yang, and when the yin yang spins, the two are blurred into a single unit, which is a more accurate representation of the truth. For me, considering the differences leads not to how the two are different, but how they are the same.
This points to another relationship between this move and the core wave. The timeless interplay between separation and unity. Some people are black and some are white but, more importantly, all people are people.
-- Erik J. Lundquist
I have always thought of science and spirituality as being the same thing. Why did I just write that. I do think that now, but for many years thought they had nothing to do with each other. Hmmm. Well in the not to distant past these subjects were not as seperated as they are today. I have developed a philosophy about reason and faith. These are two tools to navigate our lives. It requires faith to believe that I am actually typing these words and not having the experiences fed to me by some machine while I lie on a table somewhere with wires connected to my head. Blind faith is far from ideal in my opinion. That's why we have reason. We examine and make decisions about which leaps of faith to take and which not to take. Reason that denies faith is also not ideal. It can only crawl along at the pace of its own reductions. Working with faith and reason together we can make great leaps and be less likely to go over cliffs. Rhyme and Reason.
-- Robert C. Cohen