THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
06/28/02 -- Vol. 20, No. 52
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
History for the Science Fiction Fan (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
Retirement Differences (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: History for the Science Fiction Fan (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
I was thinking about my high school history classes. I have to
admit that I was not a big fan of history in high school. I did
okay. But it was not the most viscerally fascinating subject for
me. (That was probably mathematics.) It may well be that
teachers are rarely rated on style. But the difference between an
adequate teacher and a good one is a question of the style to
capture students' imagination. Few of my history teachers
attempted to grab the imagination of the class. That's a real
pity. But it is not surprising since they don't get very excited
about history themselves.
That high school memory somewhat surprises me. These days I think
history has probably surpassed science fiction in my interests.
Certainly I would rather see the next new historical film than the
nextnew science fiction film. That is because once I was out of
school and did not have to learn a fixed curriculum, history
suddenly started to be one of the most engaging subjects. Once I
was no longer being tested for it, suddenly history was more of a
passion than the fantastic. Basically, it has the same kind of
appeal as fantasies like Tolkien. History offers us fully-
realized and complete worlds that we can visualize ourselves being
in. And we can see what other people did in these worlds. You
don't have to ask yourself would people really do that, if the
history is accurate they would. Unlike reading science fiction,
when you study history if it is accurate people always behave in
believable ways. And it has an added bonus that it was real.
Tolkien wanted his world to seem like it is real and did a fairly
good job. But there is more to learn about Byzantium than there
is about Middle Earth. There is only a limited amount possible to
learn about Middle Earth. If you get interested in Byzantium you
are limited only by the degree of detail you want. Though some
information is harder to find that other.
Incidentally, I think that the cinema has gotten a bad rap from
historians. A lot of the reason that history tweaks my and other
people's imaginations is as an almost direct result of the
historical film. Even in school the history that came the closest
to grabbing my imagination was the history that was in and around
events that had been dramatized in film. I remember sitting in a
theater and hearing some kids in front of me looking at a coming
attraction and calling it "awesome!" The film was not some sci-fi
or action film, it was THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS and what the kid
was finding awesome was a visualization of the French and Indian
Wars. This was a period of history that really had never grabbed
me. It does now because I have seen THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS and
it was indeed awesome. I now can picture what life was like then
and what fighting was like. The film may well have been a
complete distortion of history. I do not form my political
opinions based on a film, but I do allow a film to tell me that
some period of history is exciting to study.
So I am a "fan" of history. That said, in what follows I am not
arguing against the study of history but only against one argument
for that study. The most common one-sentence defense for the
study of history is generally attributed to Santayana (though
nobody is really sure where or even if he said it). "Those who
forget history are condemned to repeat it." It sounds good. Most
aphorisms do initially. But do I really believe it? Do you?
Well, it is true that a knowledge of history can suggest what to
do and what not to do in a given situation. And it can help one
to understand the motivations of people in a given situation.
(That is assuming they remember the history in the same way that
you do. To understand the troubles in Northern Ireland or the
Middle East it may be less useful to understand what really
happened in history and more useful to know what each side
believes happened.) But does the study of history offer what we
would call wise counsel for avoiding repeated errors? I have my
own observation, but one I think maybe actually even truer.
"Those who remember history are condemned to be misled by it." A
moment's thought tells you the aphorism that history repeats
itself is true only on a very gross level. There are always major
and important differences in the repetition. If I think about it
I more often have seen people ignoring the specifics of a new
situation because the new situation superficially resembles a
previous one. That way lies danger if not disaster. That is the
phenomenon behind the observation that countries always prepare
for the previous war, not the upcoming one. They are being misled
by history.
Admittedly, it is true that some events follow similar courses due
to similar principles. In what was initially a throw-away idea in
a story, Isaac Asimov suggested those principles could be defined
like the principles of physics. That is what his "psychohistory"
is all about. But even if psychohistory worked as a predictive
tool, it would have to be as an exercise in the Law of Large
Numbers. In the short term chance tends to dominate, but over
many tests statistics kicks in. On one set of a million coin
tosses you will get just about the same proportion of heads as you
would get in a second set when you flipped it a million more
times. But flip the coin only once and you get no useful
information about the result if you flip it a second time.
Political polls are a reasonable predictive tool about an upcoming
election in large part only because they are predicting the
aggregate of millions of votes. Try applying them to a single
voter and they are extremely unreliable.
But are historic events the aggregate of many actions or are they
one big action? The truth is probably that they can be either,
but most are the actions of a few individuals influencing many.
It is an argument I have generally heard as the issue of the
"Great Man" hypothesis versus the "Tide of History" hypothesis.
You can see the Roman Servile War as the result of one leader,
Spartacus, coming along. Or you can see them as a great tide of
discontent in the slave classes of Rome and eventually it boiled
over. Psychohistory works best assuming a tide of history, is a
terribly unreliable tool if one is all the way on the side of the
great man hypothesis.
History does not give you a really reliable predictor for current
events. Within a very few months the political climate in
Afghanistan has changed. Most historical precedents after
Alexander the Great have said that Afghanistan is the military
equivalent of a patch of quicksand. It has not proved to be such
a quagmire, at least if we are removing one government. The
problem is that all cases of history repeating itself are false
analogies. Things may look the same but the devil always lives in
the details. The same situation never returns. Well . . . hardly
ever. [-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: Retirement Differences (comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)
One of the main differences in being retired (other than paying
less in taxes, and having to keep telling our families that we are
*retired*, not unemployed or "pseudo-retired," to use my nephew's
term) is that we are far less claendar- and clock-driven.
For example, when we go on vacation, we can leave on any day, and
return on any day. We don't have to worry about "maximizing" our
vacation by leaving Friday night (or Saturday morning) and
returning Sunday night. We can leave on a Tuesday (after rush
hour), take our time driving, and so on. We can stop at
bookstores in Connecticut on the way to visiting my family in
Massachusetts instead of making a mad dash after work on Friday.
We've done a bunch of short trips of the sort we never had enough
vacation days for, and are getting ready for a month-long trip to
the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc. (Someone asked us what
day we're getting back, and it was wonderful to be able to say,
"We don't know. We're driving and we're retired, so there's no
real deadline.")
We discovered that Home Depot is much less crowded on Thursdays
than on Saturdays, and eating lunch out after 1PM much faster than
between 12N and 1PM. We discovered than all the senior citizens
seem to grocery-shop on Monday afternoons, and the aisles are
impassable because they are always stopping to chat to each other.
We go on Tuesdays, usually after lunch at the best sushi place in
the area. (And lunch is quite a bit cheaper than dinner for the
same food.) We also have time to buy produce at the produce store
instead of settling for what the grocery has.
We discovered that because we could do our shopping and such
during the week, we could do more on the weekends as well. We
just went to the NJ Chili and Salsa Cook-Off in Toms River last
Saturday, and last October we attended the annual meeting and
laboratory tour of Consumers Union.
We go to movies on weekends only if we're going with friends--the
audiences are much quieter during the week. (This will change
over the summer.)
We find we're spending a lot less money somehow. This is true
even with all our appliance breakdowns--so far since we're retired
we've had to get four new tires, a new furnace, a new washer, a
new dryer, plumbing repairs, and new brakes. But we're spending
way less for taxes, less for gas, probably less for food, but
probably more for DVDs, and $1 for a bag of books at the thrift
shop every time we go to the bank next to it. (On the other hand,
with all the T-shirts we have from our working years from vendors,
we won't need clothes for a while. Since we don't wear shoes in
the house, they will certainly last longer.)
What I discovered, however, was that being retired didn't
magically give me enough time to do everything I wanted to. After
nine months, I can't figure out how I ever could go back to work--
there's no spare time for it. :-) [-ecl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Numbers are like people; torture them enough and
they'll tell you anything.
-- Anonymous
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/