More Tarkovsky needed

Solaris Forum topic created by Leostaris, September 7, 2002

Comments

[Leostaris]

posted 07 September 2002 05:46 PM
Hi all.

Say, is this a Tarkovsky forum or not? Things have been pretty slow on this section for a while, in terms of discussing the original movie. But I see well over 500 posts on the new movie and it isn't even out yet! So what gives? Are you all Tarkovsky fans or not? Let's get some more discussion going here!

I just started watching the film last night for the third time. I finished watching the first part, which ends just as they're getting ready to go to the space capsule.

I first saw this film about six years ago. I had missed it on its first release in '72. I had wanted to see it but being in the army at the time they never showed it on base and when I got around to going to an off-post theater I couldn't find it anywhere. It was come and gone because it wasn't a boxoffice hit, despite the favorable reviews.

The first time I saw it, on a rental video, I was impressed, but also somewhat puzzled, annoyed, and disappointed. I was unprepared for its slow pacing and lingering shots, interrupted by jarring surprises in sound and image. Much of the symbolism escaped me. Mostly I was let down by the disparities from the book. The ocean never seemed to come alive and seem ever-present as it was for me in my experience of reading the book. Yet I enjoyed much of the film and resolved to see it another time. So I recently bought the video, watched it again, and now a third time. I am really liking the film much better now, on its own terms. It still falls short of what I would like a film adaptation to be, and I expect Soderbergh's version will fall short of that too, but it's a worthy work of cinema nonetheless.
The most serious lack in Tarkovsky's version is the total omission of the Ocean's enigmatic massive creations on its surface. Being the introspective, psychological director as he was, I can understand how T thought it unnecessary to depict these. I think he kind of missed the boat on this--the symmetriads, mimoids, etc., are essential clues to getting even a glimmer of understanding of the nature of Solaris. But then again, the movie worked well enough as a psychological study of the human, and non-human, characters involved. So I can't blame T much for this. Then too, he was under severe budget constraints and special effects in those days were not so highly developed. The only way you can convincingly recreate some of those Solaroid creations is by computer graphics.

I've read that Lem did not like this film. No doubt he won't like and, reportedly, won't even bother seeing the new one. That's his prerogative. I can understand why he didn't like T's film. In his mind it was too pessimistic and introverted. It seemed to take Snauth's side in condemning the futility of man's exploration of space and his motive for doing so. Whereas in the book the ending is on a more hopeful note: Kris' stay on Solaris implies it is worthwhile to continue the effort of trying to communicate with the Ocean, that exploring the cosmos is worthwhile, even if not always productive, thus refuting Snauth's cynicism.

That's all I have time for now. I'll watch the whole movie again, take notes, and offer more comments in the near future. I just thought I'd like to spark more Tarkovsky discussion here. The revered director deserves more from you. So please let's have more. I am looking forward to reading your posts.

[Songbird]

posted 09 December 2002 02:58 AM

It wasn't easy to find this version of Solaris at local VCR stores but I finally located a copy. I was excited to watch it and expected a more philosophical discussion. Some parts of the movie I liked better than the remake, while I liked the remake better in other parts. I think it would be ideal to see the first of the two tapes and then see the remake. The artistry in this original movie was wonderful, especially in the first VCR tape of two. It showed nature in all its beauty, and a slower pace as well as provided some nice background to the story. I liked the way T. used black and white and then color. I liked the way more conversation took place at the space station. One thing that stood out right away is the difference between the Russian film and the way they make films in Hollywood. There was much more seriousness, less smiling and less scenes of Solaris.

There was a philosophical thread in this story but I had expected more and was told this movie was much deeper. I found the space station 2nd VCR tape, very good but somewhere in the middle it dragged and seemed to go on forever. When the ending came at last I was just as puzzled as I was when I left the theatre after watching the remake. What was the movie trying to say? Or was its message no message? I use the word message for the lack of a better word. All opinions welcome. Anyway, after seeing the remake a few times and then this original version I got to see where I fell asleep when I saw the movie way back when it was in the theatres. If T. would have shortened the film somewhat in the second part I think it would have been better. I felt exhausted after watching it..

[Viragpali]

posted 14 December 2002 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Leostaris:
Say, is this a Tarkovsky forum or not? Things have been pretty slow on this section for a while, in terms of discussing the original movie. [...]

You are right, Leostaris; we should pay a greater attention to Tarkovsky's 'Solaris' here.
It might be my shortcoming, but I have failed to notice anything in Tarkovsky's film that would be unnessential or boring. Even the [in]famous driving sequence seems to me now as it was lasting only a couple of minutes. I have to admit, though, that I really love this film and I have seen it many times (I have 11 different editions of this film on tape, VideCD, LD and DVD). I think, for fully appreciating this movie, one should see it a multiple times, undisturbed (being alone in a dark room, and watching the whole movie at once.)

Also, having just seen Soderbergh's adaptation, Tarkovsky is far more poetic, as well as - and it really surprised me - dealt with the book's science fiction elements with a much greater sense and success. For example, Tarkovsky's space station looks just beautiful - both ouside and inside. For comparition, the sets in the American film are plain dull. As for the ocean, even though Tarkovsky might have presented it with a limited interest, his shots are far more imaginative and memorable than any computer generated scene in Soderbergh's version. In Tarkovsky's film it is very evident that the ocean is ALIVE - whereas in S's film the planet looks like a magnified version of that electrostatic glass globes [?] one can buy in some department stores: impressive, but lifeless and cold. Likewise, Soderbergh's ocean is just too homogenous.

As for comparing Tarkovsky's film to the book, I think, T's film is even better than the novel - and particularly at the end (IMO).

I am sorry that I just can not resist to compare the two 'Solaris' films [again] but I assume that Tarkovsky will be still with us by the time Soderbergh will have already been forgotten. (According to Ear, there are different kind of people: some are not willing to, and the others can not ... - and in this case Sogerbergh seems to belong to the second group.)

[Leostaris]

posted 15 December 2002 04:22 AM

At last, replies to my post! Now I've got to get around to watching Tarkovsky's film again.

Welcome to the site, Songbird!

So, what was the movie trying to say?

Certainly it had a message. But do you really need someone else to tell you? Perhaps you need to see it again, but you say you've already seen it a few times. So how come you have derived no message from it? Part of the fun is getting your own message out of it. Or to get the one and only message out of it on your own.

You said you're also puzzled by Soderbergh's film's ending. Again, it is a puzzle you need to have the fun of cracking by yourself. It will be more rewarding than having someone else tell it to you. Have you read the novel yet? Maybe that will help. Or maybe the novel will mystify you too. The novel has a lot of puzzles too.

Viragpali, I agree with you that Tarkovsky is far superior the poet to Soderbergh (despite the latter's quoting a poem in his film). But I don't think Soderbergh was really striving for a poem--more of a fairy tale.

I actually liked the sets in the new film, though everything looked too stark and sterile. Maybe that was for deliberate contrast with human flesh and feelings, as in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I found '72 Solaris' sets more interesting, hinting at neglect, decay, accumulating disorder and psychological disturbance, just like the novel. And the library, as an artistically cozy refuge from cold technology, was a masterful touch. How perfect that Kelvin and Harey's most poignant moment of expressing their love, the period of weightlessness, occurred in the library.

The most serious defect, setwise, in the 2002 movie is, as you say, the planet Solaris, specifically the lack of an ocean.

Though I liked the appearance of the planet as seen from orbit, it was hypnotically and ethereally beautiful, the new film never even hints of an ocean. The ocean, as a metaphor of life-giving, creative and destructive power, is a crucial element to the story. Including it would have improved Soderbergh's film too. Someone in the film forum mentioned being on the edge of the Pacific and how inserting oceanic scenes would have enhanced Solaris 2002. Someone else mentioned how different a film James Cameron would have made had he directed it. Cameron, with his love of the sea (The Abyss, Titanic, the Bismarck TV special) would surely have centered the movie around the Ocean.

I disagree though that Tarkovsky's film is better than the book. However, I do think his ending has more dramatic punch. But after all, Lem wanted a more open finale.

I'll rewatch Tarkovsky's version again soon and be back with more comments. Merci.

[Viragpali]

posted 15 December 2002 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Leostaris:

[...]

Viragpali, I agree with you that Tarkovsky is far superior the poet to Soderbergh (despite the latter's quoting a poem in his film). [...] I actually liked the sets in the new film, though everything looked too stark and sterile. Maybe that was for deliberate contrast with human flesh and feelings, as in 2001: A Space Odyssey. [...] Someone in the film forum mentioned being on the edge of the Pacific and how inserting oceanic scenes would have enhanced Solaris 2002. [...]I disagree though that Tarkovsky's film is better than the book. However, I do think his ending has more dramatic punch. But after all, Lem wanted a more open finale.

I'll rewatch Tarkovsky's version again soon and be back with more comments. Merci.

Thanks a lot, Leostaris! I am glad you too appreciate the sets in Tarkovsky's film (but you can express it with a much better style than I could ;-) Thanks for pointing out the fact that the beautiful floating sequence is taken place in the library (which, for me, seems to be serving as another island for the characters [for being/remaining humans] in the otherwise somewhat disorganized and instrument-filled space station [a "non-human" environment).

I see your point regarding the sets in 'Solaris '02'. Nevertheless, I still feel that the new film lacks of ingenuity. For example, in '2001' the spacecraft - e.g. the pods - look unique. Similarly, going forward to the next century, we should encounter machines and transporation vehicles far different from the ones we currently know. For instance, the space station in T's 'Solaris' is much different from the real space station 'Skylab' (which was in service about that same time the Russian movie was made). However, in case of Soderbergh's adaptation, as you have mentioned it before, the interior of the capsule looks just like a replica of the [already 20-year old] Shuttle's cockpit. In short, I do not think the sterile and dull environment was intentional - I rather feel that it was the result of the lack of immagination at the design department. (Although I might be mistaken.)

I am looking forward to hearing your opinion after watching Tarkovsky's film again! (BTW, do you have the Criterion special edition DVD with 9 deleted/alternate scenes? - I have just received mine, but I can not open until Christmas ;-( / ;-) so, let's see, how many times do I have to sleep until then...?)

[Glimmung]

posted 16 December 2002 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Leostaris:

But Soderbergh has said he wasn't much interested in the aspect of advanced technology. For him what was important was the drama of the human interaction, though some have criticized him for coming up short on this...the more I watch T's film the more of a presence the Ocean seeps in to me...

Leo, I very much agree with your assessment of T's "ocean". It has a presence whose effect is somewhat subtle, and cumulative. But it is definitely there. I've come to think of S's movie as "portable" in the sense that you could really have the same movie set on Earth with the Visitors being supplied by a mysterious cave or something. The Solaris setting is crucial for Lem because of the things he wants to say about contact, communication, the limits of our understanding (on both the personal and "species" level). T also required the remote setting, especially with his addition of the plot thread concerning Kelvin's father.

Oh, and per the thread in the "Lem About Solaris" topic about baldness! For Lem, Leo, and any of you who might be "cranially fleece-challenged"... it is said that the Buddha's little tuft of hair represents enlightenment

[Leostaris]

posted 24 December 2002 04:48 AM

Hi Viragpali, I ordered the Criterion DVD a few days ago. I'm looking forward to viewing it.

By the way, Tarkovsky's Solaris will be shown at the Castro theater in San Francisco this Friday the 27th. Doubt I'll be able to get down there though.

[Viragpali]

posted 22 December 2002 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Leostaris:

I haven't gotten around to ordering that DVD yet but I will. Thanks for reminding me.

Very good post, Leostaris. Well, Santa decided to give me something else as a Christmas present, so I could watch the Criteriomn DVD ;-) It is full of extras, so I would suggest every fan of T's Solaris to get thhis edition (along with a couple of other ones).
The four - long! - interviews are really great; truly informative and even touching. However, I was most interested in seeing the deletead/alternate scenes, and I am not disappointed at all!

For example, originally there was a loooong [but beautufully done] shot of Kris approaching the station. As opposed to the final version, this footage shows the station from a much greater distance (the outpost appears to be almost just a dot) until it fills entirely the screen, being shown from an exact perpendicular view from up. We can even see the interior lights aboard the sation + lights are lit up on the exterior of the station towards the end of the approach. This sequence is followed by a view of the Kris' badly burned capsule lying on the floor of the station. ++++ On the Stalker DVD edition, there is a "hidden" trailer for Solaris, which contains some outtakes as well. In that trailer, we can see Kris emerging from the still smoking capsule. So, combining the three footage - the Criterion long version + trailer on the Stalker DVD + the original version - we could get a full description of Kris' voyage, which has a true SCIENCE FICTION sense as well.
Another deleted scene highlight the main characters' relation, particularly focusing on as to why Kris and Harey just could not get along in their second [third, to be exact] chance. (as an off-topic remark, I wonder how just could the couple smoothly cope with each other at the end of Soderbergh's version? I have found no explanation in the film - apart from utilizing the American movies' obligatory 'happy ending'...)

In addition, there are extra shots of the ocean, particuarly assiciated to Berton's report.

In short, the Criterion Solaris DVD is just great - and so is Tarkovsky's film! Now I appreciate even more (if it is all possible ;-) the great Russian director's work. I have no doubt that the Soviet 'Solaris' nothing less than a brilliant piece of art and by far the best adaptaion of Lem's novel.

Thanks.

[Ltribwell]

posted 30 December 2002 11:26 PM

Originally posted by viragpali:

I have 11 different editions of this film on tape, VideCD, LD and DVD

I saw Solaris on VHS back around 1990 or 1993. It showed scenes of the ocean morphing giant people in bright yellow and I believe blue. It seems this was before morphing was being done in the states. It was the first time I saw morphing. I don't believe I could have made this memory up because I had never seen morphing and didn't see it again until The Terminator came out. I rented a VHS and a CD of Solaris in Russian with subtitles last week and neither had these morphing scenes in them. Since you have seen more editions of Solaris than I have, could you tell me if any of them had morphing images in them?

[Leostaris]

posted 31 December 2002 05:34 AM

That's interesting and surprising to me, Itribwell! My Solaris VHS, distributed by Fox Lorber home video, has no such morphing scene in it. But there is one shot, about 45 seconds or so, that shows the ocean being more active and turbulent than in most of its shots, washing back and forth like a surf, and it looks like giant yellowish clouds are boiling up from it upon the horizon in front of the red sun and they seems to be taking on incipient organic shapes. Perhaps this is what you saw and maybe my tape has a truncated version of it so that the scene was cut before the clouds assumed distinct humanoid shapes? This scene I think was shortly after Hari's suicide-by-liquid-oxygen attempt. This lack of portrayals of the ocean's creations of stupendous and enigmatic forms was one drawback about Tarkovsky's film that disappointed me. And also disappointed me in Solaris 2002.

I have just ordered the Criterion DVD and I will watch for the scene you describe. Thank you.

[Viragpali]

posted 31 December 2002 11:47 AM

Originally posted by ltribwell:

Originally posted by viragpali:

I have 11 different editions of this film on tape, VideCD, LD and DVD[QUOTE}
I saw Solaris on VHS back around 1990 or 1993. It showed scenes of the ocean morphing giant people in bright yellow and I believe blue. [...] Since you have seen more editions of Solaris than I have, could you tell me if any of them had morphing images in them?

Thanks for the inquiry and info, Itribwell. First, I do apologize, but I have only 10 editions (my mistake). Also, I can not watch two of them (a PAL and a SECAM tape; however, I might get them transferred and see if they differ from the rest. I collected these tapes - a Russian and a British edition - just for their box art.)

There is an extended footage on Berton's report on the Criterion DVD, as an extra feature. Although there are additional scenes featuring the ocean (e.g. ice-like slabs are floating), I failed to notice shots showing the effect you have described. It seems that there are many out-takes exist - if I had the money, I would buy a VHS copy taken from the [supposedly intact] filmprint in the Russian [Gosfilmofond] archive. The only drawback is that it would cost for me $200.

Again, you can find additional scenes in the Solaris trailer on the Stalker DVD. It even has a shot showing the planet from a distance (even though it does not look really great, it is the only scene featuring a view at the curved surface of the planet against the starry background).

My tapes. etc. have been manufactured recently, so they basically feature the same cut. However, I have a tape (supplied by Hungarian - my native language - subtitles), that is much darker than the rest. Due to this fault, however, I could see the ocean through the windows of the station much more often than on any other edition (due to the apparent overexposure of the ocean on the original filmprint - which made perfect sense and is in accordance of the laws of physics [e.g. optics]). So, in a way, it is a sort of hidden feature, not normally be seen on a perfect [e.g. DVD] edition. I would suggest you to lower the brightness on your TV set, so you could bring out some pretty views of the planet's surface (the "sun" is apparently right behind the planet on [most of] those scenes).
Leostaris: please, let me know, how you like the Criterion Edition.

And HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone! (even though it will be a bad one for the world - thanks to some power-drunken, greedy morons ... [I do apologize for the bad mood - I wish I could be more optimistic...]

Thanks.

[Gryka]

posted 10 January 2003 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Glimmung2:

This is funny... in a scary way...
"2003 in Review" from Kos's 'Blog...

Oh-my-God! Glimmung - I could kiss you ;^) This is very funny!

Since the artist formerly known as Prince changed his name again, he should now be referred to as "the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince" :^D

[Glimmung]

posted 03 January 2003 02:16 PM

Originally posted by viragpali:

And HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone! (even though it will be a bad one for the world - thanks to some power-drunken, greedy morons ... [I do apologize for the bad mood - I wish I could be more optimistic...]
Thanks.

All the best to you as well! I share your apprehensions.

This is funny... in a scary way... "2003 in Review" from Kos's 'Blog...

Did everyone notice that Ridley Scott received his Knighthood from QE2?

[Glimmung]

posted 11 January 2003 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Gryka:

Oh-my-God! Glimmung - I could kiss you ;^) This is very funny!

Well, thanks! I know this isn't a political forum but I like to share... I liked Bush saying he'd "amenderated" the constitution. I also laughed sadly when Bush actually said "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" (italics mine). :rolleyes:
Some of these are also savagely funny - and he donates his profits to the efforts to clear land mines in Afghanistan.

Get Your War On

I would also like to belatedly and respectfully note the passing of John Rawls - I have found his concept of the "veil of ignorance" to be a powerful argumentative tool in discussions with, for instance, religious majoritarians. Especially when living, as I do, on the grimy underside of the Bible Belt

[Gryka]

posted 13 January 2003 05:14 PM

I also laughed sadly when Bush actually said "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur" (italics mine). :rolleyes:

Just recently I heard him say (yes, I memorized this one;^) ): "There's only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like."

George W., also known as the Hugging President... What can I say - some of us go above and beyond our duties...

And thank you for Philip K. Dick link - fascinating. It reminded me of the legend of Cassandra. Apollo gave her insight into the future and cursed her at the same time making everyone around think she was crazy and disbelieve her prophecies. Except Cassandra wasn't mad and P.K.D. obviously was.

I would also like to belatedly and respectfully note the passing of John Rawls - I have found his concept of the "veil of ignorance" to be a powerful argumentative tool in discussions with, for instance, religious majoritarians. Especially when living, as I do, on the grimy underside of the Bible Belt

So, is that where your "ethical relativism" is based? On a neo-Kantian theory? That's not entirely relativistic, isn't it? I'm just curious. I haven't read his Theory of Justice, just the commentaries and disputes – especially those by Habermas – which were killers IMO. So I thought I didn't need to read it, since the theory was effectively dead. But I know that he had tremendous influence on the American culture.

But I need to ask you something else. Majoritarians: who are they in the Bible Belt nowadays? You know majoritarians rule Georgia – the one in Caucasus Region – so there maybe plenty of confusion ;^). I'm curious myself. The American majoritarians I met were not prepared to explain what they actually stood for. And the political explanations are not enough. Or is it the essential part of their philosophical strategy? "The first majoritarian principle of success: never explain your theoretical basis. Marxists explained their theoretical basis and look what happened to them!" ;^)

So could you relate their views, more-or-less?

[Gryka]

posted 13 January 2003 05:14 PM

Glimmung, your comments reminded me of the time I traveled to Dallas to visit friends. As I arrived I found the family in crisis. A teacher told my friends that their daughter was involving herself in Wicca rituals, which according to the teacher was very bad. I walk in and they say – "say something to her, she respects you." So, I turned to the teenager and said: "Did you have fun?" Let me tell you – that didn't fly well with the parents. But what was I to say? "Stop performing the rituals, the Christians are afraid your curses may come true?" :rolleyes:

I don't envy your life in Bible Belt, Glimmung. At least, here in Chicago, the moral majoritarians (also known in translation as Bolsheviks) are few-and-in-between. On the other hand, the minoritarians are here and they proclaim absolute ethical relativism, in equally unprofessional way. There is simply no escape!

As to Frist, what did you expect? As a surgeon he carries the shield of the butcher, doesn't he?

But not all news is bad. It seems that the old conservatives, the old republicans are still around to impress us. The governor of Illinois issued a blanket pardon to all death row prisoners. Effectively killing the death penalty in Illinois. The governor was under the suspicion of corruption so he didn’t run for reelection. And at the last moment of his first turn – he simply did what he felt was right. I want the old conservatives back. Where are they? At least when the going got tough, one could expect some human gestures from them. BTW, it was pleasure watching on TV the princes in state’s attorney office show their displeasure with Mr. Ryan (the governor) and appear helpless while doing so.

From what you are writing, your ethical relativism is quite non-relativist indeed. You seem to accept universality of values across the individual human experience and perception, and across the entire humanity. This is how I understood the statement of values being "a human construct," I don't think you're saying here that values are matter of convention because that would contradict your earlier assertion, rather that they are encompassing entire humanity and don't apply to cats or dogs, for example. Thus, all you need to do is to see that there are no contradicting values in the example you presented in our previous discussion (the example about atomic bomb and imperative to torture the terrorist) and you will be entirely converted. ;^)

[Glimmung]

posted 13 January 2003 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Gryka:

That's not entirely relativistic, isn't it?...But I need to ask you something else. Majoritarians: who are they in the Bible Belt nowadays? You know majoritarians rule Georgia – the one in Caucasus Region – so there maybe plenty of confusion ;^). I'm curious myself. The American majoritarians I met were not prepared to explain what they actually stood for. And the political explanations are not enough. Or is it the essential part of their philosophical strategy? "The first majoritarian principle of success: never explain your theoretical basis. Marxists explained their theoretical basis and look what happened to them!" ;^)

I think of the Veil of Ignorance not as a relativistic tool, but a means of reaching consensus about the nature of a Just State. What rules would you agree to concerning government's relationship with religion, if you don't know whether your own beliefs are in the majority or not? I know we've gone back and forth on the issue of relativism - I think I'm relatively un-relative. ;^) Ethical rules are not revealed by god or discovered by science - they are ultimately human constructs which reflect the subjective nature of our existence. Your excellent Herbert quote reminded me of when Wittgenstein said "Ethics and Aesthetics are one and the same".

It's not as if I speak with people who have any idea who Kant was or know about Categorical Imperatives. I do like to point out their hypocrisies, as when they defend the effort to prevent Wiccans in the armed services from practicing their religion (might distract them from their task of defending the first amendment, you know), or when they prevent native americans from using peyote but allow underage Catholics to take wine, or when they post the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, or want to force schoolchildren to say "under God" (everyone know exactly which God is meant, and this made me very uncomfortable when I was forced to do this as a child), and yet protest mightily when Christians in other countries are treated as second-class (or worse) citizens. Or, how it's OK to question, investigate, and tear down the walls of executive privilege if Clinton is president, but not if Bush is.

Still, Oklahoma surprised me last November. We voted to outlaw cockfighting (it had become legal in the 60's when a judge ruled that poultry were not "animals" for the purposes of cruelty laws :^( ), and we elected an obscure Democrat for governor over the Christian Right's ex-jock poster boy Steve Largent.

Most people cannot explain or logically defend what they stand for, when pressed. They lead "unexamined lives", taking their cues from parents and other authority figures. It usually turns out they stand for the rights of the majority to control the terms of discussion (when they happen to be in the majority), and they stand for the god-given rights of the individual (when they happen to be in the minority.) Rawls' Veil of Ignorance exposes this dichotomy. I'm not making strong claims for Rawls' conclusions in general.
It seems Senator Bill Frist is intent on challenging Bush in the area of nonsensical statements:

"I go to Africa once a year or twice a year to work with the African-American community." Wouldn't it be easier to do that over here?

"I can['t] say it’s our number one priority but seniors and individuals with disabilities deserve the same sort of health care that people in the private sector get when it comes to prescription drugs." I hope when I leave the private sector I do it by getting older and not by becoming disabled!

Knowing his history with cats, I wonder exactly what he does over in Africa? A pundit called him the "Kitty Kevorkian", which is funny, but the analogy breaks down because the cats Frist obtained under false pretenses could not consent to their own deaths. (for anyone who doesn't know, Frist, while a medical student, "adopted" cats from shelters so that he could practice his surgical technique...)

[Glimmung]

posted 13 January 2003 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Gryka:

...So, I turned to the teenager and said: "Did you have fun?" Let me tell you – that didn't fly well with the parents. But what was I to say? "Stop performing the rituals, the Christians are afraid your curses may come true?" :rolleyes:

LOL! :^D Which would be worse from the parents point of view? To practice an "imaginary" religion (no results), or (horrors :rolleyes:) an effective one? I have to say, a work friend of my partner has had some suspiciously successful results with some curses. Ockham's razor still suggests coincidence, but what if??? Much like the supposed healing results of prayer. Some %%% of people pray, some %%% of people experience mysterious cures, and statistically, these two populations overlap.

This is how I understood the statement of values being "a human construct," I don't think you're saying here that values are matter of convention because that would contradict your earlier assertion, rather that they are encompassing entire humanity and don't apply to cats or dogs, for example.

Agree about convention, which is changeable as the weather. But, as you may have guessed, I feel very strongly about animal rights. Are you saying that only beings capable of conceptualizing and articulating rights are entitled to them? Does Solaris have no rights? (the planet, not the book, which as you argued on the "Under the Surface.." thread, and as Soderbergh has demonstrated, has no rights ;^) )

I was also pleased by Gov Ryan's actions. I'd hate to think we'd reached the point where only fatally compromised politicians are capable of acting from pure conscience!

[mondrian5]

posted 13 January 2003 09:20 PM

Glimmette,

Originally posted by Glimmette

I've read Lem's Solaris and I've seen both movies. Frankly, the whole damned thing is overrated.

Did you notice our momentary but collective flinch?
:^D

[Glimmette]

posted 13 January 2003 08:06 PM

Just for the record, Wiccans do not perform curses. ("An it harm none, do as ye will.") My friend casts spells. Odd that my premiere on this board should be provoked by a desire to defend a belief I don't necessarily share. More important than its validity, however, is the intent of its adherents. Should there be a judgement of some sort, we'll be lucky if we're examined on the basis of our intentions rather than our grip on the truth. Assuming there's a truth. Oh dear.

Glimmung says I must stay on topic, so along with expressing my appreciation for months of stimulating correspondence, let me contribute a few observations of my own. I've read Lem's Solaris and I've seen both movies. Frankly, the whole damned thing is overrated. Now Jaws-- there's a movie!!!

Seriously, I did want to say/ask this: Lem's descriptions of the mimoids, symmetriads, asymmetriads, etc., are the most memorable images I've been given in a long time. I was disappointed by their absence in Tarkovsky's film, mystified by their absence in Soderbergh's. How can it be that neither Tarkovsky nor Soderbergh found them vital to the story? The behavior of Lem's ocean was plainly connected to the "replica" phenomenon. While I can understand Tarkovsky not having mimoids in the budget, I think Soderbergh could have made a different movie-- and a better one.

[Glimmette]

posted 13 January 2003 10:43 PM

mondrian5:
Yes, and I enjoyed it tremendously. But I promise to behave myself from now on.
Okay. Not really.

[Yeti]

I feel a little like David facing Goliath here, but I'd at least like to thow in my two cents. Now mind you, I'm cringing for a hit because I'm not well-steeped in philosophic or political theories. Think of me as a cup of hot water into which a tea bag of philosophy and political theory has been dunked a couple of times. Not like a good strong Earl Grey, but more like an Oolong that's been underprepared.

If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is no truth at all. If morality is a man-made construct, then morality is meaningless. If one person thinks premarital sex is wrong and someone else thinks it isn't, who is right? I believe that God has dictated a set of moral codes, and that we as humans are given the choice to follow them or reject them.

You mention, Glimmung, that people go around following the majority with little or no understanding of why they believe the things they do. I would agree with that statement. I would also state that there are a lot of so-called christians who have never read the Bible and who blindly follow the teachings of a particular church without really understanding the basis for those beliefs. Consequently, you will always have a Jim Bakker out there who will gather up a set of followers that he spoon feeds, and thus creates another black eye for christianity. But there are many people out there with a much clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches, and perhaps the reason you don't hear about them as much is because what they teach is probably a lot closer to "normal" than most "normal" people would like to admit.

I guess where I'm going with all of this is that I think people live with their own personal set of morals and values, whether they subscribe to a divine list or their own list,but that those morals are not always in agreement with the morals and values that they think their government should legislate. Most would agree that murder should be illegal. But isn't murder merely a moral issue? There are those out there who probably think that if someone sets foot on their property, their life is automatically forfeit, hence the proverbial hilbilly on the front porch with his shot gun.

People complain about society and about the government, but the problem is not the government. It's the people themselves. People have so deeply embraced moral relativism that society has lost much if not most of it's moral compass altogether. If everything is permissible and everyone can do what feels right to them, how long before we end up with gladiator fighting and orgies and all the other things that moral relativism implies if carried to its extreme?

[michael]

Yeti,

I think the golden rule is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you" - it goes a bit differently in English but you know what I mean...

This reminds me of the story about the female gorilla that took care of the boy who fell into her pit at the zoo. Why did she do that? I guess the boy looked sufficiently different from a gorilla child for her to realize he wasn't an ape, so this act seemed like an altruistic gesture to me. Leo could probably explain this to us... I wish he came back.

I personally think that morality is innate and it works as a survival mechanism. It allows us to survive in societies, to interact with others in non-destructive ways. It is a counterbalance to your typical darwinian behavior. If you can picture in your mind what other people feel and resonate with that feeling in yourself, you're much less likely to do harm to them. I think it is that simple.

The problem is that people often don't fully understand the impact of their behavior on others and also misread the intentions of others (hey, just like I misread your joke, Yeti).

Those who do bad things often feel provoked by their victim - this is typical of abusive people. They have low anxiety tolerance levels, perceive others as hostile and act accordingly. In other words they read bad things into other people's behavior and think they are just reacting to an act of aggression - I'm talking of course about those who really misread other people's intentions, not those who just blame the victim to escape accountability. This does complicate the moral issue, doesn't it?

BTW do you condemn premarital sex, Yeti? It sort of sounded that way, so I just want to make sure here...

Imo we don't need to mix God and the bible in to talk about moral values. Mother nature will do just fine. ;)

[Yeti]

I threw premarital sex in there just as an example, but since you are asking, premarital sex runs contrary to God's will and therefore is not acceptable. I don't know that I would use the term "condemn", though. Personally, I believe that you can "hate the sin, but not the sinner", so I would not "condemn" someone that I thought was making poor choices. I'd point out why I thought their decision was bad, and I'd do my best to explain my reasoning to them, but ultimately it's their choice.

We all make moral choices, good or bad, and we live with the consequences of those choices. I believe that you reap what you sow.

[michael]

I sincerely wish we reaped what we have sown. Especially all those war criminals, dictators and so on. Too many of them end up living a cushy life till the end of their days.