As we all know, IDIC = Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I believe it first appeared as canon in an Enterprise episode. It seems to me that the phrase is somewhat redundant. Wouldn't "Infinite Diversity" cover everything? "In Infinite Combinations" doesn't seem to add anything. Yes, I'm bored.
You could have infinite varieties of strawberries and infinite varieties of bananas but none of them would get you strawberry-banana flavor
I submit that infinite varieties of strawberries WOULD give you one with strawberry-banana flavor. We're talking "infinite" here. There's no end to what strawberries could do.
Or pistachio/peach/chocolate wobble, whatever the blazes that is because that sounds utterly disgusting... unless that's the intent cuz he's like an evil kid who knows he won't have to eat the puke he'd create two minutes after swallowing all that, ish...
If it helps - imitation vanilla, imitation raspberry, and other "natural flavors" used to have a constituent known as "castoreum". Now, if you read up on various ingredients and saw just what castoreum is, you'd be saying "Dam!" and then swearing up a real storm, because "ish" also describes what that is... not to mention, who was the first human to discover what it was, decided it tasted real good (and how!), didn't get sick or die from ingesting so much of it because it tasted sooooooo good (and how!), and so on... This also oddly reminds me of: It's about a marshmallow-like substance that comes up from the ground, in a unique twist for an 80s horror flick... his video has a shout-out to "Q" as well... sorry for the thumbnail being a spoiler alert for what it does to its victims... the word "ish" also comes to mind...
Vulcan philosophy amounts to “infinity² diverse.” Which feels like a little kid’s way of expressing “the most,” or a stoned teen trying to get deep. And I love it.
Oh, on the contrary -- the two concepts are very different. Diversity just means things are different from each other. Combination means they coexist and interact. Most Americans at the time of Star Trek's creation had grown up with racial segregation, a strict divide in acceptable gender roles, and a fair amount of class division -- diversity without combination. The accepted norm had long been that if people were different from each other, they should stay apart from each other. The idea of diversity in combination -- different kinds of people coexisting and learning from each other and celebrating their differences -- was a radical, transformative idea in the 1960s, an idea that a lot of people were fighting to make real, and that others were violently resisting. So the combination was the most important part of the statement Roddenberry was making. To quote "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" -- "The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity." "And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty." GR was saying that we shouldn't just tolerate or ignore each other's differences, but celebrate them as a beneficial thing. And there's a lot of logic to the idea. In physics, things only happens when energy flows from higher-energy regions to lower-energy regions. In other words, combining different things creates change, growth, and dynamism. It's true on a human level too. The greatest cultural dynamism has historically been in regions where those different groups interact and combine, nexus points of travel and commerce where different ideas blend together and generate innovation. Diversity in combination is more dynamic and fruitful than diversity in isolation.
I prefer the term Redundant Department of Redundancy. But let's be honest, IDIC was mostly just a cash-grab for Roddenberry and needed a catchy name to achieve that goal.
In that case I would say that you don't need 'infinite diversity' and can just go with 'infinite combinations', given that if there is finite diversity, you can only have finitely many combinations, either. (Well, unless perhaps if you count 1 apple and 2 bananas as a different combination from 1 apple and 1 banana)
OMG Trek so woke, stop trying to shove diversity down our throats! Only seasons 1 and 2 are canon not this woke shit!
Yeah, but Star Trek was also a catchy name for a product that Roddenberry created so that he could get paid.
The pin representing IDIC was a cash grab. That doesn't mean the concept of IDIC was. He tied the pin in to a message that would resonate with Trek's target audience because they believed in it. As Tosk said, all of Star Trek was done to make money, but that doesn't mean it didn't sincerely have something to say in the process.
Memory Alpha reported Leonard Nimoy balked over the marketing attempt. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/IDIC Didn't Shatner and others complain about it as well? https://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2013/08/dont-know-much-about-vulcan-philosophy.html The concept art for its original design looks pretty cool in its own right... (Shatner definitely did. Were they wrong in balking? Or right, perhaps? The idea of some badge of unity is more than centuries'-old fare. Would people balk nowadays? And will sugar-free chocolate truffles go on sale ever again?)
Which, again, was about the pin, not the concept itself. If the characters had discussed the philosophy without tying it to a piece of merchandise, nobody would've complained.
People still have this lionized view of Roddenberry and his "vision", even to this day. His "IDIC" pin was a moneymaking venture for his new Star Trek (later Lincoln) Enterprises that he was trying to get off the ground and using the show as a marketing vehicle. Nothing more high-minded than that. In STFC, upon Zefram Cochrane's realization that he was considered a revered figure in the future ("A STATUE?!?!?"), he felt obligated to set the record straight: There is a very specific reason those lines were in there. THAT is also Gene Roddenberry. He re-invented himself prior to TNG's release as some progressive firebrand in a vain attempt to erase his ultra-capitalist past. In the end, we remember. So IDIC? It is a fine concept. Nobody should ever believe, however, that the noble message it conveyed was its primary goal. GR simply knew what appealed to his show's main audience demographic and leveraged it.
I never said it was. I said that we should not blame the message itself for Roddenberry's mercenary use of it. Those are two different things, and the fact of the latter does not erase the value of the former.