Time Travel discussion

Not necessarily. My belief is that people created societal laws precisely because they recognized within themselves the desire to do evil (or at least non-good). Once those flaws were recognized and a form of governance created, society flourished over non-societal groups and civilization was born.

Not saying that is for sure how it happened, but it's just as valid a theory as mankind being innately good.

W. wrote: "My belief is that people created societal laws precisely because they recognized within themselves the desire to do evil"

When was the last time that you had the desire to do something and then felt the need to initiate protocols to prevent you from doing what you desired?

If you can find such a time... is the feeling due to societal expectations?

Now imagine a time without such societal expectations. What would be the impetus for wanting to have an organized form of self-censorship?

Short of our pre-historic brethren being exceedingly masochistic... there must be more to it.


W. wrote: "Once those flaws were recognized"

They would only be recognized as flaws, if we are inherently more "good", then "evil".

More evil is done by those who are frightened of something, rather then because the perpetrators want to be bad.

Unless you equate fear with evil, in which case...

Besides, if you take all of what you just said, it means that humans are, at the heart of it, beings who want order and want to do the right thing. You just described that, as the basis for civilization. And I agree.

It could be simply that there were primitive people who worked together and accomplished something more productive. Others who watched this saw this and realized, out of selfish intent, it was better to work with others and accomplish more. Once groups were formed like this, somebody undoubtedly did something not part of the agreement, and it created a disruption. This caused the others to react, voting was probably born of such a situation. The disruptor was ousted, killed, punished, whatever.

Now at times, people within this group were probably doing things they did not want to do, but the group decided what was good or bad, productive or unproductive. Individuals were presented with a carrot (productivity) and a stick (punishment) and societal norms began. But all of this could have easily been born out of selfish intent instead of altruism.

Ever read The Man Who was too Lazy to Fail? It was one of the stories in Time Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein. Clever little read in a big book.

Underneath my Most Cynical Badge is my Most Likely to Derail Thread Badge.

James #49:

Your premise is lofty but Historically unsound.

Them against us; just ask the Neanderthal, or look at ancient Egypt or the Vikings, etc.

Only when them is as 'badass' as us do consequences come into play & then interactive society can be negotiated, not before.

I agree with W.

Just saying

I believe that you are taking modern man, with modern man's hangups and neurosis and other forms of psychological frustration and pasting that onto primitive man.

I've read nothing to suggest that primitive tribal peoples were this debased.

W. wrote: "realized, out of selfish intent, it was better to work with others and accomplish more"

That sounds more like a tribe of sociopaths.

"That sounds more like a tribe of sociopaths."

Clearly you've never been to New Jersey. :)

Howard wrote: "James #49:

Your premise is lofty but Historically unsound.

Them against us; just ask the Neanderthal, or look at ancient Egypt or the Vikings, etc."

I don't know exactly what you mean about my premise being unsound.

The Neanderthal don't enter into this discussion, for two reasons:
1- They are not human and, thus, can not be involved in a discussion about how humans behave with humans.
2- We don't know why they died off and, counter to your intent, it's possible they were bred out, by our dominant genes. (we know cross-breeding occurred)

Ancient Egypt and the Vikings don't enter into my "premise", either, since both are examples of established civilizations.

Unless you meant something different?

W. wrote: ""That sounds more like a tribe of sociopaths."

Clearly you've never been to New Jersey. :)"

Many big city sub-cultures sound like tribes of sociopaths.

Big cities are not a healthy environment, for human beings. Living with millions (or even tens of thousands) of people is impossibly unwieldy and impossible to fully process, on an ongoing basis.

And I absolutely have no intention of ever going to New Jersey. But that's just me.

It is interesting how different philosophies of where we began end up shaping our image of where we are going. To bring this back on the rails, the concept of time travel allowing criminals to somehow see the error of their ways may seem a bit outlandish to somebody like me, it is perfectly acceptable to somebody like James.

James, that terrible optimist from Canada, with his clean streets, low crime rates, polite culture, and an inability to pronounce the letter 'O'. How do you even function!?

W. wrote: "James, that terrible optimist from Canada, with his clean streets, low crime rates, polite culture, and an inability to pronounce the letter 'O'. "

You saved yourself from embarrassment, by not using the "aboot" more directly. Because that's not what we say.

It's called "Canadian Lifting" and it's an actual phonetic thing.

How Canadians Really Pronounce "About"

In less pleasant company, I'd just say, "I've got your diphthong, right here."

HA!

James wrote: When was the last time that you had the desire to do something and then felt the need to initiate protocols to prevent you from doing what you desired?

People do this ALL OF THE TIME. Why do people eat unhealthy food knowing it is bad for them? Why do people do dangerous things (ride a motorcycle, go skydiving, shoot heroin, etc.) when they know they are dangerous? Society places protocols on these things to limit them (high taxes on cigarettes and sugars, speed limits, required safety courses and licenses).

Imagine you could eat as unhealthy as you wanted, right up to the point of a sugar coma, then go back in time and change it? Time binging, here I come!

Samantha wrote: "People do this ALL OF THE TIME. Why do people eat unhealthy food knowing it is bad for them? "

There is a vast difference between "I want to do bad things, so we should make laws and cultural norms to make me ashamed and to prevent me from doing the thing I want"
and
"I feel compelled to do something that I know is not good for me"


Samantha wrote: "Why do people do dangerous things (ride a motorcycle, go skydiving, shoot heroin, etc.) when they know they are dangerous?"

Now you're getting it!

You are describing people who want to do something. Do motorcyclist and skydivers try to convince people that what they want to do is bad? Do they want to enact laws to prevent themselves from doing so?

Think of the motorcyclists who were against helmet laws. They didn't say, "I prefer to ride without a helmet and I think that should be stopped". Of course not.


Samantha wrote: "Society places protocols on these things to limit them "

Yep. I strongly suspect that you missed where this line of argument started, but assuming not:

Exactly. But check up where I was arguing that civilization couldn't have been started by selfish people who wanted to make rules to limit themselves.

It doesn't have to the majority of people, or even a very significant minority. The fact is there are already enough people lacking sufficient conscience and self restraint to keep the authorities busy and the rest of us locking our doors and teaching our children about "stranger danger". I would be afraid to see what it would be like if we removed whatever amount of external restraint might be keeping them somewhat in check.

Do keep in mind the original discussion and why we weren't talking about the current American crime rates which, now that you mention it, are the lowest they've been since the 1960s.

Craig wrote: "It doesn't have to the majority of people, or even a very significant minority..."

To fit the argument that I was disagreeing with... yes, it does.

Post Reading Question

How would you rate this story?

1 star Hated it
2 stars It was ok
3 stars It was enjoyable
4 stars I really liked it
5 stars I loved it

Lincoln wrote: "Post Reading Question

How would you rate this story?

1 star Hated it
2 stars It was ok
3 stars It was enjoyable
4 stars I really liked it
5 stars I loved it"

3 stars It was enjoyable

The story had some bothers, but the writing was pleasant
enough. I haven't read much Silverberg, but I find him an easy read.

Four stars

4 stars for creativity.

Waffling - I'll go with 3.

No way I can jump in the middle of the conversation at this point. Yeesh!

I'm going to go with 5 stars. I really liked the idea and the follow through of the story. Maybe I'm grading it so high because the first 2 stories were just so so, but I still think this is a story I'll come back to mentally. I explained the concept of it to my husband and his reaction was to tell me of memories he was sure was 100% accurate and then he'd reason out that Event A and Event B meant that his memory couldn't be correct. Or how many times have you sworn that you've done something only to find out that you didn't. Sometimes our memories don't match up with reality. What better way to explain it?

Not to mention deja vu....

But I've read some recent brain science neuro-psychology books that actually explain these types of experiences and false memories very well. Sorry to spoil the mystery, but this is a rapidly advancing field and really interesting.

I would give it 4 stars. I really liked it.

Cheryl #74 mentions deja vu:

Cheryl, I prefer deja new.

That's the distinct feeling that I've never been here before.

Just saying

Howard wrote: "deja new.

That's the distinct feeling that I've never been here before."



That would be jamais vu.

#77:

No so James; jamais vu is a true paradox, being vaguely familiar but somehow unplaced.

Not what I said nor my point, which was, of course, humor.

#77, being jargon, is definitely unfunny.

Just saying

Howard wrote: "#77:
Not what I said, nor my point, which was, of course, humor.

#77, being jargon, is definitely unfunny.

Just saying "

I didn't realize it was a pre-existing expression. I merely took "already seen" (deja vu) and changed it to "never seen".

#77, if it weren't existing jargon, would have been funny.

Just sayin', teach.

James #79:

Another paradox it seems; humor that must be explained is definitely unfunny.

I'd say 'Just saying,' but given plenty of others have already said such, I won't.

Still, given we’re afield of the thread, let’s just call it a draw, for after all:

(a quelque chose malheur est bon)

I'll come up with some L'esprit de l'escalier, later.

James #81:

Understood.

And well said.

Just saying

Howard wrote: "And well said."

Wait... if it was well-said, at the time, then I don't need the L'esprit de l'escalier. Or were you time traveling and noting that, later when I come up with something good to say, it'll be "well said"?

Damn it... this time travel stuff is so confusing. Especially when you mix it with temporally-relevant expressions.

James #83 wistfully laments that 'time travel stuff is so confusing'

Not at all; just another paradox, plain & simple.

To be fair, perhaps I should have said 'well played' but I'd have to go backwards to do so.

However, heh heh heh spelled backwards would sound the same.

Again, just saying

When time is opened up, where is backwards?

James #85, again we stray, but as you asked:

Time is certainly linear, yet given it's also circular in nature it doesn't 'open up' so much as undulate, and hence 'the direction' is rendered relevant only relative to the flow.

My latest book demonstrates this fact for it can be read backwards as well as forwards and, if you arrange the chapters as the numbers on a clock, they all relate to each other, and from either direction.

The answer to your inquiry then becomes both nowhere and everywhere, a true paradox.

Heh heh heh still applies, as I said.

Hope this clears things up.

Howard wrote: "...this..."

But "heh heh heh" is not the same, from the inside out.

James #87, again picking away (where did this thread go?):

As I view Reality,'from the inside' would start at the 2nd e no matter your direction.

Looks the same to me.

Hopefully for the last time,

Just saying

When I come from, we neither have French menus nor French expressions in our English language nor a French Quarter in New Orleans. I've seen photos of the latter and I'm pleased that those decrepit buildings were demolished to make way for a musical sky mall 300 years ago.

Oh look! There's a hologram of Howard playing his five string guitar!

Nor do we use that old-fashioned expression "heh heh heh" any more. People became too confused when they started at the wrong point on the circumference of the straight line in that one.

Those with a sense of humor, when I come from, use the universally continuous "hahahahaha..." At least, if you start from the wrong point, you discover something.

Aha!

Rather than

Eh?

Lance #89:

Bravo.

From the Italian, but in America we say 'that's goody goody' instead.

Pardon us.

Just asking

Forgot to say: the reason those damned French expressions got banned from the English language centuries before my time, was that they caused far too many recurring arguments and fatal shoot outs. The strange thing was, that each time that happened, it was as if it had never happened before. It was all new, yet old.

Just saying!

Lance #91:

Ditto on that #90 and

That's all I'm saying

Yes. American English always confused me. It is a dead language in my world. I only use it when travelling. Even the French speak English English in my time.