Futurist
and Pastist
Zoltan Istvan has
written a book called The
Transhumanist Wager. He is a ‘Futurist’ and I’m finding the concepts he
writes of fascinating. To simplify a bit, there’s conflict between the long
established religion/government and a wave of scientists who seek to improve the
human condition in innovative ways.
I write books about the
ancient past; if Zoltan is a ‘Futurist’ I reckon that makes me a ‘Pastist’. It doesn’t
have quite the same ring to it but hey, it’s only a label, right?
Right.
As I was reading his
work (not through it yet – sadly, reading under the influence of exhaustion is
not a generally recommended practice, sigh) I found that I really do like his
characters. And I actually GET what he’s saying.
Now, the rebuttable
presumption, which I rebut, is that a ‘Futurist’ and a ‘Pastist’ whose writing
styles are diametrically different, whose subject matter seems incompatible,
and whose works are miles apart in recognition would have little or nothing in
common.
Ah but - I’m also INFJ. That’s
a personality type based on the Meyers Briggs Type Inventory. One of the things
I do instinctively is find patterns.
A couple of patterns
pop out at me.
One is humanity’s
inherent resistance to change, in conjunction with the fact that change is
inevitable.
Another is that the, apparently insurmountable, odds against diametrically differing perspectives
ever co-existing without conflict aren’t really the least bit insurmountable.
What the bloody heck am
I talking about?
*laughing*
Okay, Zoltan is writing
about the future; I write about the past. His ‘status quo’ characters are
pretty much opposed to the steps being taken to make changes in ‘life as we
know it’. My ‘status quo’ characters are also adamantly opposed to the changes
that are taking place in the world as they know it.
It’s humanity at its
finest, for good or for ill. We are probably never going to lose that trait –
some call it loyalty, some refer to it as hard-headedness. We are ready,
willing, and able to fight for what we believe in; sometimes we win, sometimes
we lose, but we’ll always be in there fighting.
We are also creative
and innovative; this too is humanity at its finest. This too is a trait we are
never going to lose.
And so the second point
comes into play. Zoltan’s characters are taking the changes in the world we
know above and beyond the changes my characters have to deal with – BUT –
remember that time zone thing. At the time, the changes that challenged my
characters were no less threatening to them than Zoltan’s scientists’ changes
are to his ‘status quo’ characters.
Honestly, it’s the
conflict that’s universal.
How the resolution
evolves, I don’t know as I have yet to sit down and finish reading The Transhumanist Wager. The resolution
of the conflict in my own books takes many generations of sacrifice and
commitment, and a sort of (fictional?) sneakiness on the part of many.
What I see in both the ‘Futurist’
and the ‘Pastist’ is a sort of circle that’s developed over the course of the
intervening time.
Odd as it may seem, the
protagonists of my books would not have evolved into the antagonists of his but
would probably (Probably? Ha. Absolutely) have been in the fore of those
standing for freedom to explore and develop innovative technology. Bet on it.
Remember the first part
of the Legacy? First and always comes Choice. Rome tried to dictate; it didn’t
go over too well and to this day the Choices of our ‘back then’ people are
impacting us.
To protect and
preserve, that was the goal.
How it was done? I think,
from the mysterious ‘disappearance’ of the Sidhe, clear back in long ago
antiquity, through the Culdee in historic times, that the answer, like Poe’s
Purloined Letter, lies in being ‘hidden’ in plain sight.
That’s where the
sneakiness comes in.
I write fiction but I don’t
live in a fantasy world.
Myth and legend aside,
let’s think about the Sidhe for example, just for a minute.
The entire population
of a race of people disappears by going to live in an enchanted underground
world?
Really?
No.
If they went ‘underground’
it wasn’t literally.
Perpetuating, perhaps
initiating, the myths and legends, would have served them well, however.
Columba (leaving out Ninian
for the moment as he seems to have been ousted from officialdom) miraculously
converts a notorious, historically recalcitrant, nation of barbarian pagans to
Roman Christianity in no time flat and the Culdee were their Roman priests?
Really?
No.
Sorry, but no.
And I’m not really all
that sorry.
Protection and
preservation, remember?
Fictionally speaking,
as opposed to verifiable concrete evidence, the Druids who ‘became’ Culdee would
not have had it in them to just up and abandon thousands of years’ worth of
beliefs at the drop of a hat, no matter who was doing the dropping of said hat.
Five hundred years is
plenty of time to incorporate new information (Christ’s birth, life and
teachings, death, resurrection, and promise) into perfectly compatible older
belief systems, and vice versa. Albann/Alba/Caledonia/Scotland already knew Christ, long before Columba or the Church
got there.
In my story lines the
conflict is not between Pagan and Christian. The one stems as naturally from the other as limbs from a trunk.
The conflict is between
having the freedom to choose for one’s own self and being dictated to.
Think about this for a
moment: the Dark Ages, coincidentally (perhaps?) started at about the time the
Western Roman Empire fell, right? And they ended right about the time people
finally began to look, once again, for themselves, at what they had been taught
or had been forced into complying with (at least outwardly) for that whole
time.
Am I imagining a
pattern that doesn’t exist?
Maybe, but I don’t
think so.
Rome gets too big for
its britches, splits politically, geographically, and religiously.
Rome adopts Christianity,
turns it into a political and military tool, assigning previous military
regions to ‘new’ religious ones. Church and State are one.
Western Rome falls.
Eastern Rome (Constantinople)
hangs in there.
The Dark Ages ensue.
The Dark Ages,
coincidentally (perhaps?) are finished when people figure out that
communication (notably reading and writing, and printing and dispersing
information) is a good thing and that they maybe ought to 1) think for
themselves, and 2) connect with like-minded people.
The power and control
of organized religion and established government is challenged by people who think for themselves, and share their thoughts on the differences between their handed-down (protected and preserved) beliefs and the way things were in their world at the time.
An example?
Okay.
6 April 1320 Scotland
Sent to the pope:
Declaration of Arbroath
http://www.scotsman.com/news/the-text-of-the-declaration-of-arbroath-1-465230
I love this document;
aside from the sentiments it presents, the very presentation itself I find
impressive in a sort of Dickensian way.
These guys are telling the ipso facto Boss of the World (a little more diplomatically and with more imaginative language):
Look, here's the way it is, here's how come we CAN do this, here's how come we DID do this, and it would be nice if you as the Boss of the World (including our neighbors but not really us) would kindly tell Edward II to get off our backs about it since he won't listen to us. However, it doesn't really matter to us what you think or say, one way or the other; it's done and it's gonna stay done.
The Lollards
1396-97
http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollconc.htm
The Lollards present Richard
II of England and the parliament with a list of 12 Conclusions regarding the
Church and basically challenging it to prove by what authority it was behaving
as it was.
Namely:
1) Temporality (civil, secular, political, possessions/authority) of the Church of England, following in the footsteps of Rome, not Christ
2) The priesthood has become something that Christ never ordained to his Apostles
3) In prejudice of women, the law of continence has been annexed to the priesthood
4) Transubstantiation is nonsense and not based on anything Biblical
5) Exorcisms and Hallowings are money-making scams
6) Clerics in secular offices: logic of separation of Church and State, essentially
7) Prayers for the dead - another money-making scam
8) Pilgrimages - a waste of time and money, and idolatry to boot
9) Confessions: blessings and curses, bindings and unbindings, heaven and hell for sale
10) War, Battle, and Crusades are against the fundamental teachings of Christ
11) Female vows of continence, unreasonable in the first place, lead to abortions, which are worse than the women having had sex against the rules - let them marry/remarry at will for cryin' out loud
12) Arts and Crafts - not what we think, this refers to the fancy schmancy stuff the church and its personnel indulged in - the money could be better spent caring for those who need help - get back to the basics
Now such things don’t
just spring up out of nowhere all of a sudden.
What on earth could
have made the Scots think for one minute that they had the right to kick their
King out of office if he failed them? And send a notice to the Pope about the whole thing ...
How did the Lollards
come by the audacity to write out a list of conclusions like that?
What gave
them the right to even THINK of them? Good Church people don't question what they're told, you know, let alone approach anyone in Authority about it.
Gee.
Maybe it had something
to do with the quiet preserving and protecting that had been going on for
almost a thousand years by that time.
These people didn’t
just up and think of any of this on the spur of the moment.
It was born and bred
into them, and into their ancient kin. Maybe it was in their very DNA, the DNA
so very many of us share, who knows?
And by now you’re
yawning, have already stopped reading, or are seriously wondering what any of
this might have to do with ‘Futurists’ and ‘Pastists’ having anything in
common.
I see a line, and it’s
a pretty distinct and straight one, from Essene and Druid to Culdee to Lollard
to Presbyterian to Quaker to the Independent (political and religious) person
that I am.
What do they all have
in common?
Independence of Spirit,
Freedom of Individual Choice, Personal Commitment once that choice has been
made, that Preserve and Protect the Legacy thing, and the too often suicidal
compulsion to Speak whether they’ve been spoken to or not, to give Voice to something that might help someone else.
These are some of the
traits of my characters that I see reflected in Zoltan's characters, the
protagonist ones I’ve met so far anyway.
And so the circle
wheels around.
Thank you Zoltan, for
making me THINK.
