Star Trek and the Meaning of Life.

[truespock]

The meaning of life. I really don't know that there IS any meaning to life. Are we each merely a completely random aggregation of plasma, proteins and electro-chemical responses, swimming in a soup of utterly arbitrary physical phenomena? Is the entire incredibly complex and varied experience of 'being' just an accident? A joke? An act of some intrinsically unknowable God? A mistake? I can't begin to guess. No one can, or ever will, in all conceivable likelihood. But I DO know that our most basic human psychological makeup categorically DEMANDS that we meticulously manufacture, continually justify, and consciously APPLY some sort of artificial 'purpose' to the unfathomable and terrifying condition of our existence.

In Star Trek, we've neatly done away with most aspects of the ugly side of the corporeal state; we don't need to spend our entire waking lives making a living, there is no war, no competition, no personal greed, no unrest: political, religious or racial...scarcely a personality conflict to be had anywhere on the planet! But what does that leave? What do we DO with our newfound freedom from the worst traits of our current day selves?

We learn. We expand. We explore. We grow. We start working together for the common good. Great strides are made in science, technology, government, art, music, literature. We finally have the time, the resources and the inclination to really figure out who we are, as a unified and forward looking species, and to make our collective peace with it. Now let's say we spend a century or two on this. What happens next? Why, once we have our own house in order, we go over and introduce ourselves to the neighbors, of course!

New cultures to be enriched by, and to add our uniqueness to. People to help. People who will help us. One big happy universe. Can we then distill the finely detailed, positive future which Star Trek paints for us into one simple applicable concept for our use today? Could we say that the meaning of life--as defined by Star Trek--is the ABSENCE of our perpetual campaign to DESTROY life (read: control, dominate, segregate, castigate, take advantage of, be intolerant of, be disrespectful of, vilify, restrict, repress, subject to a caste system or allow John Boehner to continue as a spokesman for the rich in the U.S. congress)?

Make it so!

Retired clinical psychologist and university professor, happily married, untimate Spock fan

 

[cblmc1296]

I must say, I am most impressed with your take on Star Trek and with the eloquence you demonstrate in describing it. It really is refreshing to find out that there are, indeed, people out there who look for the types of intellectual stimuli present in Star Trek and who rejoice upon finding them - so much so that that they feel the need to "tell the world" as it were, even if only through an Internet BBS.

 

[Avon]

life in the federation always seems boring though. think of all those people with nothing to do except wank away their lives in holodeck fantasies.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Not on the topic of Star Trek, but on the topic of seeking "meaning" in our lives, I think we search for direction in life that leads us to our needs being fulfilled (emotional, physical). The world is large and there is an overwhelming amount of choice. As Elton John once put it:

"From the day we arrive on this planet
Blinking, step into the sun
There is more to see than can ever be seen
More to do than can ever be done

There is far too much to take in here
Or to find than can ever be found"

Our profession, our choice in partner or friends, what we choose to do each day has to be limited and we seek purpose, or a common thread, to sustain ourselves. We have morals and norms that define what is acceptable behavior and we adjust these things as we go through life because we have strengths and weaknesses that are exposed through empirical evidence.

Kirk begins as a man of action, perpetual motion, commitment to excellence. And as you said the relationship with Spock changed his cultural norms, it changed Kirk as well. He came to see the people he worked with as family. He protected them, led them. And his duty was not as important as protecting them. If he had a child and a wife, one he was actively a part of, it is doubtful this change would come in Kirk.

 

[YARN]

The meaning of life. I really don't know that there IS any meaning to life. Are we each merely a completely random aggregation of plasma, proteins and electro-chemical responses, swimming in a soup of utterly arbitrary physical phenomena? Is the entire incredibly complex and varied experience of 'being' just an accident? A joke? An act of some intrinsically unknowable God? A mistake? I can't begin to guess. No one can, or ever will, in all conceivable likelihood. But I DO know that our most basic human psychological makeup categorically DEMANDS that we meticulously manufacture, continually justify, and consciously APPLY some sort of artificial 'purpose' to the unfathomable and terrifying condition of our existence.

The mere fact that we must act as if life is meaningful does not make it meaningful. We can pursue our hypothetical imperatives as we please (and as we must), but this does not mean that we have escaped from heteronomy into some realm of autonomous will.

And indeed, if we must act as if life is meaningful, why disturb the applecart with questions like these?

In Star Trek, we've neatly done away with most aspects of the ugly side of the corporeal state;

Actually, they haven't done this in Star Trek.

we don't need to spend our entire waking lives making a living,

Is there money in the Trekkian future? If there is, you have to work to acquire it. Half of the time there is money Star Trek. Half of the time there is no money and everyone is in some socialist utopia.

Besides all this, people still need to earn a living in terms of self/other respect. People enlist in Starfleet to chase their personal ambitions. Consider the TNG Episode Tapestry where Picard is really discontented to find himself deprived of the esteem and power of being a starfleet captain. The problem here is that there is still a power hierarchy and it is obvious that those at the bottom would prefer to be at the top. They are all working to get there, but few will reach their ambitions. Not everyone can be a starship captain. So, you have inevitable and unfortunate souls who get stuck mopping up the holodeck.

there is no war,

Really? Starfleet was always at war or at the edge of war with Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, etc. Starfleet has engaged in several wars.

no competition,

Then why does it matter if you were in the top of your class at starfleet? Why does the UFP send out starships with diplomats to jockey persuasively for treaties with resource rich planets?

no personal greed,

Which is why it was so easy for Kirk to hand over the Enterprise to Decker...

no unrest: political, religious or racial...scarcely a personality conflict to be had anywhere on the planet!

We don't spend any time on the planet. We only get to hear the official rhetoric of Starfleet. What we do get to see (people in space) flatly contradicts all of this. There is always unrest, political dissent. No, there's not much religious quarreling because as materialists they're basically atheists.
We've seen plenty of racial conflict (Spock was the butt of almost every racial remark on TOS) and even more personality conflict.

But what does that leave? What do we DO with our newfound freedom from the worst traits of our current day selves?

We learn. We expand. We explore. We grow. We start working together for the common good. Great strides are made in science, technology, government, art, music, literature.

Yes, it's all a wonderful utopia, but wait... ...no... ....it's not since they're still human. The dramas of Trek always reveal human foibles. The most telling line ever uttered in Trek belongs to Khan: I am surprised how little improvement there has been in human evolution. Oh, there has been technical advancement, but, how little man himself has changed.

So long as the human is biologically human there will be no utopia. At most we can hope to create more or less stable periods of human flourishing. That's it.

We finally have the time, the resources and the inclination to really figure out who we are, as a unified and forward looking species, and to make our collective peace with it.

Rigghhhtt! If only we had the leisure time we would finally get cracking on these problems. We would not spend infinite free time playing video games, watching TV, and posting on anonymous chat rooms on the internet.

We don't need more free time, but less.

Now let's say we spend a century or two on this. What happens next? Why, once we have our own house in order, we go over and introduce ourselves to the neighbors, of course!

New cultures to be enriched by, and to add our uniqueness to. People to help. People who will help us. One big happy universe. Can we then distill the finely detailed, positive future which Star Trek paints for us into one simple applicable concept for our use today?

And they'll speak English, and they'll be friendly, and we'll eat shrimp.

Could we say that the meaning of life--as defined by Star Trek--is the ABSENCE of our perpetual campaign to DESTROY life (read: control, dominate, segregate, castigate, take advantage of, be intolerant of, be disrespectful of, vilify, restrict, repress, subject to a caste system or allow John Boehner to continue as a spokesman for the rich in the U.S. congress)?

LOL, kick Boehner and begin the new utopia? The problems of this world run deeper than American politics.

 

[Paradon]

Since the ancient time, everybody has got to pitch in with work one way or another to help their tribes survival. Everybody has got to do work for a living. It has always been that way. Just because our economic system has gotten more complex, it doesn't mean you get to sit on your ass and get free money from the government, who stole it from someone to give it to you. That's what government do because they have no real sources of revenue, except taxes. The rules may have change quite a lot, but the basic principals are still the same...you don't work, you don't get any money to those pretty little phone that just came out. The idea of something for nothing really doesn't make any sense. Money just don't appear of thin air or grow on tree. Money comes from people working, like someone offering their services and talent for money in return or some family businesses or big corporations selling something people need and those company buy the raw materials that someones own, which also cost money since they work hard to obtain the raw materials, to make their goods. But if you look on the bright side, people are living longer than their ancestors were hundreds and thousands of years ago; diseases that would have killed someone back then can be easily cured now. The average life-span of people in England back in the 19th century was roughly around 21 I believe.

You think you will find this economist view very interesting and enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek John Forbes Nash also thinks the same way. John Nash is one of the most renown mathematician who is well known for his game theory, which he won a Nobel Prize for it. He is one of the best code breaker ever, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Caesar753]

In Star Trek, we've neatly done away with most aspects of the ugly side of the corporeal state; we don't need to spend our entire waking lives making a living, there is no war, no competition, no personal greed, no unrest: political, religious or racial...scarcely a personality conflict to be had anywhere on the planet!

Um, what?! Have you ever watched Star Trek?

 

[Gary7]

Sorry, but from what you describe, it sounds like you've watched just a few episodes of TNG--the only Star Trek series to portray a mostly "perfect world."

But the point you're trying to make, if I may make an assumption, is that civilian life is much more evolved in the world of Star Trek. Perhaps, and yet perhaps not.

In TOS, we have a few episodes where Kirk and company are introduced to a "paradise" situation or way of life. But they opt not to partake or tolerate it. Kirk makes an observation about that, something along the lines of human beings needing to overcome obstacles. That struggling is part of what makes us who we are. This theme seems to no longer apply once we get to TNG, as counselor Troi mentions how poverty and ill health have all but been eliminated.

However, as we've witnessed, there is still war and challenges present in TNG and DS9. Yet, for the most part peacetime is very peaceful in the Federation.


You know, living in a technologically advanced society creates a number of illusions. I think the biggest of all is that we are not as advanced as we think. We have far more creature comforts and security in the 1st world, but it is fleeting. We have NOT had this kind of prosperity for very long, relative to the history of humanity. And... every day we create more and more dependencies that present risks to that prosperity.

Unfortunately, the key element is genetic evolution. We are still so hard wired with primal instincts that require extensive mentoring to instill a civilized moral structure. And lately, we've witnessed how easy it is for that to erode. Look at some of the highly prosperous people who've been caught committing crimes and exploiting the less fortunate. People who've been schooled in prestigious institutions and bestowed with positions of power that you'd think require a high degree of moral conviction. And yet, we're entering a phase of awareness where we find ourselves with a corrupt US government. A brutally competitive 2 party system that wastes more time jockeying for position than caring for the welfare of the country. Take the recent debt situation at hand, as an example. Where is the civic duty to do what is right, rather than fight to have the say of what must be done over what others wish? How could these wealthy elected officials wait until THE LAST MINUTE to make a critical decision? It's just pathetic. And the USA is supposed to be a model nation on Earth.

We've got a long way to go... the only way we can reach the kind of prosperity suggested in Star Trek is to evolve more. To develop a better parental and academic mentoring structure that instills the fairest values in its citizens. People will continue to contribute to society in ways that they are best suited for, yet also by choice rather than being forced. There will be ample time for creative pursuits. People will do things for the sake of it, not to get rich or become popular. Exploration will still be a key activity... Once we've gotten life "right" here on our planet with destructive religion dispensed with and no one having any reasonable way to instigate revolts against society, we'll be able to focus on spreading ourselves to the stars. We HAVE to do this eventually. Assuming we become very conservative with our resources on Earth, who knows how long we'll be able to survive. Several hundred thousand years? We will need to draw upon resources elsewhere, like the Moon and Mars. And real long range, our sun will eventually burn out. If it does and we die without spreading out to another solar system, what good did any of this do? It may be the greatest Darwinian challenge of all... to continue life in a not too distant young solar system.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

In Star Trek, we've neatly done away with most aspects of the ugly side of the corporeal state; we don't need to spend our entire waking lives making a living, there is no war, no competition, no personal greed, no unrest: political, religious or racial...scarcely a personality conflict to be had anywhere on the planet!

Um, what?! Have you ever watched Star Trek?

The utopian aspect of Star Trek refers to Earth and more generally, the Federation. Which we rarely if ever see. Starfleet deals with the un-utopian part of the galaxy, on the frontiers of the Federation and beyond.

Thus does Star Trek have its cake and eat it too: positing a utopian and boring future, which it never actually depicts, in favor of all the un-utopian exciting stuff that must happen to make the galaxy safe for the boring utopia. How convenient.

To the OP: you cannot be the Ultimate Spock Fan, for I am the Ultimate Spock Fan!!!

 

[truespock]

Interesting, if unsurprising, reactions to this post. Apparently, many of you have concluded, from my remarks, that I haven't actually SEEN Star Trek. 'Yarn', in particular, took a great deal of time with a VERY detailed, point by point refutation of just about everything I said. Hope you didn't miss lunch working on this, friend. Especially loved the reference to 'soapbox posts' someone else made. Is THAT really what you get from my humble little scribblings. Not a very good sign, is it? Now, to address your 'concerns':

Is my chosen interpretation of Star Trek a 'rose-colored' one? You betcha!

Would I expect an infinity of 'takes' on the show we've all memorized the dialog to? Of course...perhaps, unfortunately.

Do I believe that the human race will ever see anything like a Trekesque utopia? Not a snowball's chance in Hell. I simply prefer the Trek 'reality' (MY version of it, anyway!) to the one I actually inhabit.

To the several of you who mentioned you thought utopia would be boring, SHAME ON YOU! I hold those with this attitude to be amongst the chief of reasons why we will never get there. After all, most of us prefer our steaming pile of contentious, ego-driven, back-stabbing, false-faced, take-no-prisoners, 'winner' takes all excuse for a social system to remain EXACTLY as it has always been, don't we now?

Jeez, was that too 'soapboxy'? It's just that I'm sitting here wondering if my social security check is going to come next week, while the so-called 'government' continues to play a rousing game of 'chicken' with itself!

To Temis the Vorta: No you're not...I AM! (LOL)

 

[cblmc1296]

With Star Trek, as with anything else, what we get out if it depends largely on what we bring to it in the first place. I'm not sure why so many people seem troubled by the term "Utopia" except perhaps that it seems to have such a connotation of finality and absoluteness to it - perhaps as a result of the way people like H.G. Wells saw it. But again, my confusion over that is likely the result of who I am and how I view things.

Anyway, I don't know whether true Utopia would be boring but I don't think we'll ever find out from experience. All the same, it's not a bad thing to wish for and work toward. To put it another way, as the great basketball coach John Wooden once said, "Perfection may be impossible but striving for it isn't". That's one of the messages I get from Star Trek and the way I view the future depicted in Star Trek and I don't find it particularly "soapboxy" to want to discuss it with others.

 

[Avon]

but to get to a 'star trek like utopia' would take a lot of hard work. you'd need all those ambitious people to make it happen.
or we could all sing songs of peace and love and wish really hard.

but would you honestly want to live in a world where you wake up in the morning with nothing to do but exist?

and what are all the people who arent talented artists or brilliant scientists meant to do? become redshirts?

 

[YARN]

'Yarn', in particular, took a great deal of time with a VERY detailed, point by point refutation of just about everything I said. Hope you didn't miss lunch working on this, friend.

And I hope you didn't miss breakfast, lunch, and dinner spamming the board. But if you did, that's OK. That's what we're here for. I like spending time writing detailed refutations, ruminations, extensions, and epistles. If you don't really enjoy this, if you would really rather not write long detailed posts, perhaps you are only here seeking a supplement or a substitute for something else...

You're the guy who bombed the forum with "Talk to me seriously about Star Trek!" posts and complained about the low intellectual status of other threads (e.g., "Is Anybody Out There?). OK, we're talking.

Do I believe that the human race will ever see anything like a Trekesque utopia? Not a snowball's chance in Hell. I simply prefer the Trek 'reality' (MY version of it, anyway!) to the one I actually inhabit.

Is that it? The evil Republicans are about to wreck the economy so you are hiding out here?

To the several of you who mentioned you thought utopia would be boring, SHAME ON YOU!

And in the next line you agree that we will never get there.

We'll get to that in a minute. For now, let's consider the possibility of a utopian drama. What would that look like? As far as I can tell it would be the stuff that follows "And they all lived happily ever after." But why aren't we ever told that story? Because that isn't the story, but rather the end of it. the story consists of the blockages, retardations, frustrations, etc. that precede getting to this point. Literature is always non-utopian. Even in fluffy kid's literature in which the impediments are mere speed bumps and the problems are only misunderstandings, there are still impediments and problems. Now, how is star Trek supposed to pull off utopia when little kid's stories can't even do it?

I hold those with this attitude to be amongst the chief of reasons why we will never get there. After all, most of us prefer our steaming pile of contentious, ego-driven, back-stabbing, false-faced, take-no-prisoners, 'winner' takes all excuse for a social system to remain EXACTLY as it has always been, don't we now?

If only the world were populated with true souls (i.e., truespocks) possessing the requisite imagination, altruism, and hope we could have our long awaited utopia? Or maybe all humans suffer from human nature?

Jeez, was that too 'soapboxy'?

Not just soapboxy, but kind of sad in a way. You are not only admitting the utopia is impossible (the thing you seem most interested in finding), but you are blaming lesser humans for preventing it from happening. We're in the land of victimage and scapegoating here.

It's just that I'm sitting here wondering if my social security check is going to come next week, while the so-called 'government' continues to play a rousing game of 'chicken' with itself!

All this anxiety and expression seems to be centered around the economy.

Forget Star Trek. Learn how to garden. Make friends with your neighbors. Shepherd your resources. Stop expecting your government to solve problems (doesn't it seem like they're the ones making them?) and take positive steps in the real world to minimize the impacts of what the next recession could bring. That's what people in Trek would do- they're people "of action."

I submit that our ills are more centered around the distractions we submerse ourselves in (i.e., the theses of Huxley, Postman) than with our egoistic natures.

Good luck.

 

[truespock]

Alright Yarn, you now have my undivided attention; is THAT what your shooting for? This is the second time you've gone to a great deal of trouble to write a nasty, snarky, negative-in-the-extreme reply to me designed to debunk every point I made. You claim 'we're talking', but you're just sniping. You fairly REEK of hostility, irreverence and severe intimidation with every word you type. You've already even subtly begun your inevitable personal attack upon me--the quintessential hallmark of someone who hasn't got a leg of their own to stand on--by speculating that I'm using this forum as a substitute for 'something else'. In point of fact, YOU are EXACTLY the kind of poster I've encountered on every site I've visited. YOU are the reason I showed up on THIS site angry, and perhaps a trifle condescending sounding. Do you pull this kind of crap on everyone, or have I become your personal pet project? Rather than just relentlessly knocking what I'm trying to say here, maybe you'd like to share with us a few of YOUR best ideas. Naw, what am I thinking; you'd have done that by now if you had any.

 

[Green Shirt]

Damn, this is better than Hardcore Pawn.

 

[cblmc1296]

but to get to a 'star trek like utopia' would take a lot of hard work. you'd need all those ambitious people to make it happen.
or we could all sing songs of peace and love and wish really hard.

but would you honestly want to live in a world where you wake up in the morning with nothing to do but exist?

and what are all the people who arent talented artists or brilliant scientists meant to do? become redshirts?

Good points, all. I can only say that I try every day, in every way I know how to make the world a better place - for myself, my family, my friends and coworkers, and everyone else I meet. I don't always succeed and I am still learning but I try. I smile a lot, I commit random acts of kindness, I donate money, I volunteer services, etc. etc. I have no idea if that's how we might one day achieve a "Utopian" society but it's the only way I know how.

As to your last questions, I like Capt. Picard's take on it from FC - "We work to better ourselves". I'd love to wake up every morning and work solely to better myself and those around me. I should hope those who aren't talented artists and brilliant scientists would want to do the same.

LLAP

 

[YARN]

Alright Yarn, you now have my undivided attention; is THAT what your shooting for?

Yes, I generally hope to have the attention of my fellow interlocutors. No need to make a melodramatic quasi-threat out of actually paying attention to someone.

This is the second time you've gone to a great deal of trouble to write a nasty, snarky, negative-in-the-extreme reply to me designed to debunk every point I made.

Sometimes snark is good therapy.

You claim 'we're talking', but you're just sniping. You fairly REEK of hostility, irreverence and severe intimidation with every word you type.

Well, I might mention that you entered the board griping about the low state of discourse on this forum. I could note that after you complained about this, you then complained about getting highly detailed responses to your posts. I could observe that you have blamed those who've disagreed with you for the making utopias impossible. Indeed, I might note the highly personal nature of your words in your last post. I could say, if you want to count up negative personal characterizations, see your own words. But what would the point be?

You've already even subtly begun your inevitable personal attack upon me--the quintessential hallmark of someone who hasn't got a leg of their own to stand on

I'm not your boogeyman. I am just a guy who occasionally hangs out on a chat room when he isn't blocking key economic legislation in the senate.

--by speculating that I'm using this forum as a substitute for 'something else'.

Well, I'm sorry, but it kind of looks that way. One moment you're waxing poetic about a fantasy utopia that never existed (even in Star Trek), the next you're going on about your fears and frustrations with congress and the economy.

If you want to talk about the economy (apparently you do), then let's go OT and talk about it. You've found a good place to hang out.

In point of fact, YOU are EXACTLY the kind of poster I've encountered on every site I've visited.

So now I am the essentialized "other" who has persecuted you on every other website in the universe?

There is a lot of blame being thrown around in your posts...

YOU are the reason I showed up on THIS site angry, and perhaps a trifle condescending sounding.

Well, I am glad that you observe that your entry here was "perhaps" a trifle condescending, even betraying anger.

I am not, however, the reason you showed up here cheesed off. I am not all those other people.

Do you pull this kind of crap on everyone, or have I become your personal pet project?

I don't know. You claim to know exactly what sort of poster I am. People like me, we're all the same, right? Well, what was I like on all those other websites?

Meanwhile, in the real world and AGAIN - I am not out to get you. If you don't want to talk, then don't talk to me. I am not going to follow you around the forum.

This is, for the record, a pretty nice place to hang out. The people are nice, but often a little too stubborn for intellectual honesty. But that's to be expected. Star Trek geeks stick to their guns to the very end.

If you are looking for supportive phatic conversation, you'll find it here.

Rather than just relentlessly knocking what I'm trying to say here, maybe you'd like to share with us a few of YOUR best ideas. Naw, what am I thinking; you'd have done that by now if you had any.

What ideas? The U.S. economy? Yeah, it's messed up, but it's also off-topic. The possibility of utopia? I already denied this as a possibility upthread. The erosive tension between idealized utopias and the basic needs of dramatic narratives? I think I covered that one in my last post. If I really did have your full attention, you should have noticed this.

I'll leave off here and let you cool off or vent or whatever you need to do.

If you are ever looking to get your intellectual grind on and can handle some dialetical broadsides, you know where to find me (e.g., I am not the one in the threads about which captain is the hottest).

Live Long and Prosper,

YARN

 

[truespock]

"Yes, I generally hope to have the attention of my fellow interlocutors. No need to make a melodramatic quasi-threat out of actually paying attention to someone."

I stand corrected. Though I DO tend to feel 'quasi-threatened' by someone who seems to go out of their way to contradict or contest everything I say.

"Sometimes snark is good therapy."

You are quite wrong there, Yarn. I was a therapist for thirty years. Snark is never therapeutic.

"Well, I might mention that you entered the board griping about the low state of discourse on this forum. I could note that after you complained about this, you then complained about getting highly detailed responses to your posts. I could observe that you have blamed those who've disagreed with you for the making utopias impossible. Indeed, I might note the highly personal nature of your words in your last post. I could say, if you want to count up negative personal characterizations, see your own words. But what would the point be?"

No, I didn't come in, knocking THIS forum. I said I hoped for better on THIS forum, and, by and large, I seem to be getting it. As for my alleged 'negativity', I DO have an axe to grind, it seems. Three decades as a counselor and a teacher just tend to get a guy in the habit of wanting to see people give their best.

"I'm not your boogeyman. I am just a guy who occasionally hangs out on a chat room when he isn't blocking key economic legislation in the senate."

You're giving quite a bit of unwarranted attention to the couple of innocent, throw away remarks I have made about the government lock-up which is about to cost several tens of millions of Americans their livelihoods. I can only suppose that you inhabit the opposite end of the political spectrum than I, and get all frothy whenever a 'left wing hippie' ruffles your feathers. Curious though, I always though you guys were totally into constructing a utopia...FOR YOURSELVES!

"Well, I'm sorry, but it kind of looks that way. One moment you're waxing poetic about a fantasy utopia that never existed (even in Star Trek), the next you're going on about your fears and frustrations with congress and the economy. If you want to talk about the economy (apparently you do), then let's go OT and talk about it. You've found a good place to hang out."

Again, I haven't 'gone on' about anything. I think I just happened to brush against a sore spot. A political discussion would, to my mind, be even more pointless than wrangling back and forth about the desirability of a utopia, or 'debating' whether or not Trek actually depicted a utopian society to any degree.

"I am not, however, the reason you showed up here cheesed off. I am not all those other people."

Okay, prove it. If you think my ideas are so ridiculous, then give me the benefit of hearing some of YOUIRS. I GET that you think I'm WRONG; tell me what you think is RIGHT?

"If you are looking for supportive phatic conversation, you'll find it here."

Just for the record, I do not require you to agree with me in order to regard the conversation as 'worth having'. I DO, however, expect you to CONSIDER what I am saying, rather than simply dismissing me out of hand, as you have done to date.

"What ideas? The U.S. economy? Yeah, it's messed up, but it's also off-topic. The possibility of utopia? I already denied this as a possibility upthread. The erosive tension between idealized utopias and the basic needs of dramatic narratives? I think I covered that one in my last post. If I really did have your full attention, you should have noticed this."

You can drop the economy now. You're grasping at a straw I normally can't be bothered to wipe my ass with. So, you don't think a utopia is either desirable or feasible. What do you think we should be striving towards instead? The inherent disconnect between absence of conflict and dramatic narrative? I'm pretty damned TIRED of drama, myself. Why don't you explain to me why it's still a requirement for you?

"If you are ever looking to get your intellectual grind on and can handle some dialetical broadsides, you know where to find me (e.g., I am not the one in the threads about which captain is the hottest)."

Ah, an ironic sense of humor; your first demonstration of a redeemable quality.

 

[Arpy]

This thread lurker would like to read a discussion between the two of you. Let's see if it happens.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

No, I didn't come in, knocking THIS forum. I said I hoped for better on THIS forum, and, by and large, I seem to be getting it. As for my alleged 'negativity', I DO have an axe to grind, it seems. Three decades as a counselor and a teacher just tend to get a guy in the habit of wanting to see people give their best.

By grinding them?