Okay, we've all had time to relax and ponder this. Now to get discussion going again, and I hope we can do this in a calm and grown-up manner.
The contention that I see here arises from two setting elements: the "personality of the universe" (for want of a better term) and the nature of handwavium. I'll discuss both.
First, the "personality of the universe." Fenspace is not a dystopia - it says so right on the tin. This is not a setting where grimdark really works, unless it's being used to counterpoint some happybright. Conversely, this is not a utopia; this is not a setting where happybright really works unless it's being used to counterpoint some grimdark. But it isn't a completely uncaring universe, either - it has Handwavium, which is (to say the least) improbable.
The way I see Fenspace, the setting runs on a loosely-interpreted version of Spinozan philosophy. Human thought is very much able to influence the universe, knowledge can be gained through imagination, and morality is based upon both epistemology and utility.
However, humanity as a species does not have a single goal that we all strive toward, so utility is measured differently for different people - sometimes subtly differently, sometimes blatantly differently. Thus, an instrumentality of some sort is presented to satisfy those different definitions of utility. Enter handwavium... which I'll discuss in a moment.
Enlightened Self-Interest works well in such a world, and the characters that make up the SMOF all practice enlightened self-interest to a lesser or greater degree. Yes, particular people want particular things and are willing to go to great lengths to get those things (for example, spending years turning a hamlet into a huge spaceship, or building a space station and crewing it with AIs, or stealing a Soviet shuttle-knockoff), but all of those people are willing to share their efforts with others. Nobody is solely "looking out for number one" (save for some of the Boskonians) and nobody is completely selfless. The characters that work best in the setting are the ones that reflect the setting - morality is based upon both epistemology and utility.
Second, the nature of Handwavium. This is something that has never been discussed in depth. We've skirted around it, tossed out a few ideas about it, and decided to leave it as an area of Canon Uncertainty and Doubt. But, as with everything else we've tossed into that category, there comes a time when we have to chew the CUD.
Some call it "magic," but there are a large number of definitions of that word. Using the definition at LessWrong.com, magic is "something we don't understand yet."
Consider the interpretation of Spinozan philosophy I presented earlier, and connect that to handwavium. This presents handwavium as an instrumentality that allows one to focus human thought to influence the universe on a scale that is starkly incredible. Since no two humans think in exactly the same way, no two humans will get exactly the same results from handwavium - the science in effect here includes but is not limited to psychology.
And that's as far as I've been able to take this, so far... Opinions and comments, anyone?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
The contention that I see here arises from two setting elements: the "personality of the universe" (for want of a better term) and the nature of handwavium. I'll discuss both.
First, the "personality of the universe." Fenspace is not a dystopia - it says so right on the tin. This is not a setting where grimdark really works, unless it's being used to counterpoint some happybright. Conversely, this is not a utopia; this is not a setting where happybright really works unless it's being used to counterpoint some grimdark. But it isn't a completely uncaring universe, either - it has Handwavium, which is (to say the least) improbable.
The way I see Fenspace, the setting runs on a loosely-interpreted version of Spinozan philosophy. Human thought is very much able to influence the universe, knowledge can be gained through imagination, and morality is based upon both epistemology and utility.
However, humanity as a species does not have a single goal that we all strive toward, so utility is measured differently for different people - sometimes subtly differently, sometimes blatantly differently. Thus, an instrumentality of some sort is presented to satisfy those different definitions of utility. Enter handwavium... which I'll discuss in a moment.
Enlightened Self-Interest works well in such a world, and the characters that make up the SMOF all practice enlightened self-interest to a lesser or greater degree. Yes, particular people want particular things and are willing to go to great lengths to get those things (for example, spending years turning a hamlet into a huge spaceship, or building a space station and crewing it with AIs, or stealing a Soviet shuttle-knockoff), but all of those people are willing to share their efforts with others. Nobody is solely "looking out for number one" (save for some of the Boskonians) and nobody is completely selfless. The characters that work best in the setting are the ones that reflect the setting - morality is based upon both epistemology and utility.
Second, the nature of Handwavium. This is something that has never been discussed in depth. We've skirted around it, tossed out a few ideas about it, and decided to leave it as an area of Canon Uncertainty and Doubt. But, as with everything else we've tossed into that category, there comes a time when we have to chew the CUD.
Some call it "magic," but there are a large number of definitions of that word. Using the definition at LessWrong.com, magic is "something we don't understand yet."
Consider the interpretation of Spinozan philosophy I presented earlier, and connect that to handwavium. This presents handwavium as an instrumentality that allows one to focus human thought to influence the universe on a scale that is starkly incredible. Since no two humans think in exactly the same way, no two humans will get exactly the same results from handwavium - the science in effect here includes but is not limited to psychology.
And that's as far as I've been able to take this, so far... Opinions and comments, anyone?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012