Bit of both.
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Neural_parasite_(24th_century)#Background
Nice catch!
The New Humans
- Thread starter Unimatrix Q
- Start date
Bit of both.
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Neural_parasite_(24th_century)#Background
Nice catch!
I'm not sure about short term marriages in Star trek but I have heard the idea promoted in real life. Going into the marriage issue is a can of worms. In reality nobody seems to have any idea what "marriage" really is. What elements are required to have a "marriage?" Commitment, love(whatever that means), sex, child rearing, state involvement? There are inumerable instances where you could take any one of those away and the relationship would still qualify as marriage. So what is marriage then?
Couldn't we see marriage relationships that exist solely for one role? What about a someone who has a career who has all the resources they would ever need. They doesn't want a marriage for resource sharing, companionship, or love. Could they have a marriage that the only terms are sex?
What about someone else and they only want a marriage for shared resources, but they don't want any companionship or sex?
I think the word marriage is outdated and we need to break it down into terms that describe specific relationships. Just like the word love is outdated. We need to stop using the generic word "love" and create words to describe specific states related to love. Like the Greek words agape, eros, philia, and storge. If I have to use the same word to describe my feelings for my wife as I do for a hobby, then there is something wrong with that word.
Ok sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant but it's one of those hot topic issues with me.
Eh?
No I was disagreeing with you, if maybe in a little overly snarky of a fashion.
Adjectives exist and are completely okay in all senses, context can overcome definition overlap, and the importance of a concept is completely independent of how many definitions it happens to share space with under the umbrella of a given morpheme. "Have" is one of the most important words there is in the English language linguistically speaking, an entire tense relies on it, but the morpheme still has at least two dozen separate definitions. If you check the OED, "run" has over 500 distinct and separate definitions, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Words collect definitions because of analogies, metaphors, shared cognitive space, etc. If there's confusion, they'll get adjectives, or we'll get loanwords, or a new word will emerge from a change in pronunciation, or the new definition will collapse, or the new definition will shift even further away, or etc. etc. That's how language works, and there's no reason to associate a negative implication into a morpheme having a lot of meanings or to think that it makes one of the definitions somehow less important. It just means that at one point someone used a word in a slightly different way, and the language decided "hey that's cool, let's hold onto that".
I guess I don't really have a problem with the concept of "marriage contracts". It may sound unromantic, but hell, we already have prenuptial agreements, this is just another example of those. Besides, if the couple really love each other, they can always keep renewing! 
As for things like "love instructor" - yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on that one. It would seem like a better idea to let the people in a relationship teach each OTHER how to love; it really does depend on the individual couple, doesn't it? How they express their love for each other?
Although I'm sure there are uses for sex therapists - that's a real need in some cases. Just keep calling them sex therapists, and then it won't sound quite so wishy-washy.
As for things like "love instructor" - yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on that one. It would seem like a better idea to let the people in a relationship teach each OTHER how to love; it really does depend on the individual couple, doesn't it? How they express their love for each other?
Although I'm sure there are uses for sex therapists - that's a real need in some cases. Just keep calling them sex therapists, and then it won't sound quite so wishy-washy.
I think the concept of 'new Humans' was an 'evolution' of what Roddenberry wanted to portray in TMP and beyond.
Namely, Gene apparently attended various lectures as presented by Jacque Fresco on Resource Based Economy (Cybernation as it was called back then) - this is where he got an idea of a 'no money economy' for the Federation - but also, social evolution of Humanity and their behaviours.
This is why the 'new Humans' wouldn't really bat an eye on an orgy happening in front of their eyes, and would even join up if they had an interest.
Walking about naked, etc.
If you think this to be odd... its not.
Its simply an evolution of an existing culture which grew out of its infancy.
If you also observe some cultures today, they have men and women walking about naked all the time - the men subsequently do not ogle the women's breasts of vaginas as a result, but rather look them in the eyes - mainly because its something common for them.
In a society like Trek, wearing clothing would be commonplace for protection from the elements, but depending on the climate, no one would bat an eye on people walking about naked either.
So, all those stunts we saw on various episodes where SF officers are enticed by almost half-naked females... not how they were supposed to behave.
Actually, early TNG showed some indications of this, but didn't follow through (like on so many other things).
Namely, Gene apparently attended various lectures as presented by Jacque Fresco on Resource Based Economy (Cybernation as it was called back then) - this is where he got an idea of a 'no money economy' for the Federation - but also, social evolution of Humanity and their behaviours.
This is why the 'new Humans' wouldn't really bat an eye on an orgy happening in front of their eyes, and would even join up if they had an interest.
Walking about naked, etc.
If you think this to be odd... its not.
Its simply an evolution of an existing culture which grew out of its infancy.
If you also observe some cultures today, they have men and women walking about naked all the time - the men subsequently do not ogle the women's breasts of vaginas as a result, but rather look them in the eyes - mainly because its something common for them.
In a society like Trek, wearing clothing would be commonplace for protection from the elements, but depending on the climate, no one would bat an eye on people walking about naked either.
So, all those stunts we saw on various episodes where SF officers are enticed by almost half-naked females... not how they were supposed to behave.
Actually, early TNG showed some indications of this, but didn't follow through (like on so many other things).
It seems like you're implying that desexualizing nudity would necessarily lead to a free love environment, Deks; I don't see how that follows.
And while there's a lot to say for early TNG humans that didn't get followed up on, the desexualization of nudity certainly isn't part of it. Betazoids sure, but I can't think of anything in early TNG that even hinted towards a general culture-wide desexualization of nudity in humanity. I mean, "Justice" was in Season 1 and it's just the opposite of what you're describing. Like, literally the opposite.
and
have nothing to do with each other; the former doesn't come from the latter, as the latter is explicitly an environment where nudity has been disassociated from sex. You could have a prudish society of nudists as easily as you could have a free love society of nudists, nudism doesn't imply or necessarily lead to either over the other.
And while there's a lot to say for early TNG humans that didn't get followed up on, the desexualization of nudity certainly isn't part of it. Betazoids sure, but I can't think of anything in early TNG that even hinted towards a general culture-wide desexualization of nudity in humanity. I mean, "Justice" was in Season 1 and it's just the opposite of what you're describing. Like, literally the opposite.
^No, I think the point is that losing bodily shame and inhibitions would lead both to casual acceptance of nudism and to a more casual and open attitude toward sex. It just wouldn't have to be at the same time in every case. If you get rid of sexual and bodily shame, then you're open about sex, but you're also open about nudity in contexts that aren't sexual. I don't see a contradiction there. Part of being comfortable with sexuality is not being preoccupied with it. It's just a part of life like any other. And just seeing someone nude wouldn't automatically preoccupy you with their sexuality. Rather, you'd be drawn to them sexually because of other things, like their personality or the chemistry between you.
Yes, linguistics is one of those tricky subjects. It's constantly in flux. However, I hold the opinion that the more precise a language is the better. The flip side of that, though, is that a language with exact precision would be impossibly complex.
But anyway, bringing it back the issue of love. If I say, "You should marry for love," what does that mean? The implied meaning is that when you have a strong hormonal response to someone, you should marry them. But at the same time it could mean so many other things. And while the idea of marrying for love is a good one. What kind of love becomes the problem. I would argue that hormonal reaction is probably the worst basis for a marriage. What happens when the hormonal reaction is gone? It's something that is outside of one's control, so why base a marriage on it?
But then if I said, "You should marry for the kind of love that is chosen and within your control." Then the sentence becomes overly long. Whereas if I said, "You should marry for agape," the sentence maintains its brevity and precision of meaning.
So what does "love instructor" even mean? Using current english it could mean:
An instructor of profoundly tender, passionate affection.
An instructor of the feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.
An instructor of sexual passion or desire.
An instructor of how to interact with the person toward whom love is felt.
An instructor in how to have a love affair or an intensely amorous incident.
An instructor in sexual intercourse.
An instructor in affectionate concern for the well-being of others
An instructor of strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything.
An instructor the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.(That's put a whole new spin on that character).
An instructor of how to score zero in tennis.
So, as I know you're aware, we just make assumptions about what love means based on context rather than having a precise meaning. So when there is no context we can just assign whatever meaning we think fits. In regards to our society I think this causes a lot of problems especially in regard to marriage.
However, in regards to a "love instructor," I'm personally leaning towards the tennis thing.
Mr. Laser beam said:
We must then ask ourselves if marriage is not possible without state involvement? If it is not then what about all those people who have been marrying each other for thousands of years without governments. So now we have to define, state sanctioned marriage and non-state sanctioned marriage. What about people who don't marry for love but marry for resources as was common in the middle ages. Now there's another layer. I guess the point I keep talking around that nobody probably cares about is this:
Marriage and love are not as simple as we are lead to believe. Trying to move forward with our erroneous notions of love and marriage is going to do more harm than good.
Trying to figure out this "love instructor" business without being able to examine our own cultural biases is going to lead to convoluted theories.
Let's just accept that, in ten years or so, we will either have or be love instructors. (which is good because I get too high of scores in Tennis.)
Ah, okay, I was flipping around the progression in my head mistakenly. Fair point, then!
Actually sounds fairly Deltan, put that way, honestly.
Not impossibly complex, just straight-up impossible given the way that language is built up in the brain. Literally no two people will take the same word precisely the same way because the meaning of the word will be associated with connotations derived from personal experiences. It is literally 100% impossible in all conceivable languages to say a word and have the other person know precisely what you mean, even in a hypothetical conlang like Lojban. There are no true synonyms either within a person or across two people.
I mean, for example, the sentence "You should marry for agape" isn't the same concept web as "you should marry for the kind of love that is chosen and within your control" because "agape" has been around in English for around 400 years, and has picked up pretty strong religious connotations over that time; it's associated with "the love man has for God" as much as if not more so than "romantic love". So there's an entire implied connotation with it that means it only mostly overlaps with "you should marry for the kind of love that is chosen and within your control"; the two sentences actually do not mean exactly the same thing.
And the same would happen for any word, including, eventually, one that you invented. You literally can't enforce definition purity, because person A's meaning will only mostly overlap with person B's, which will only mostly overlap with person C's, which will only mostly overlap with person D's, and by the time you get to person Z, person A will just look at them and say "you're using that wrong" even though every pair of people the whole way through "understood each other perfectly".
Every word in every language is a ring species and always will be; it's only a question of how long a chain you need before you get a peeve war.
Makes sense, since Roddenberry created them too.
Ok Idran I've got an awesome idea! Let's make up a language that only has one word. That word is boop.
Boop boop boop boop, boop boop boop boop.
Let's call it "Pikese!"
Ok Idran I've got an awesome idea! Let's make up a language that only has one word. That word is boop.
Boop boop boop boop, boop boop boop boop.
Let's call it "Pikese!"
And awesome; sorry if I got a little overpassionate in my response there, language just happens to be one of my big interests.
Ok Idran I've got an awesome idea! Let's make up a language that only has one word. That word is boop.
Boop boop boop boop, boop boop boop boop.
Let's call it "Pikese!"
And awesome; sorry if I got a little overpassionate in my response there, language just happens to be one of my big interests.
No problem. I love languages too. I learned Tagalog (Filipino) while I lived there from 2004-2005. I know a bit of Ilokano. I'm in the process of learning Shoshone and Latin. If you want to include more fictional stuff, I'm making my own developments to Mando'a from Star Wars.
It's just so fascinating the structure and thought process behind language. The way culture influences language and the way language influences culture. I have to say my most eye opening experience was in my Shoshone class.
Th Enterprise's human crew didn't necessarily react in horror about attending a traditional Betazoid wedding. ("Nemesis")
Again, it's not the "desexualization" of nudity, just the elimination of the taboo against nudity in public or non-sexual contexts. Nudity is naturally going to be part of sexual interactions, but then, so are other things like lying down (generally), talking, making eye contact -- stuff that happens in non-sexual contexts as well and has no stigma attached. There are lots of real-world cultures that are less uptight about public nudity than Americans are, so portraying Starfleet officers as having a present-day American nudity taboo would be as ethnocentric as... well, having them drink root beer and enjoy Westerns.
Really, though, the American nudity taboo has been eroding for generations. There was a time when it was considered obscene to bare the leg of a table, because of the naughty thoughts that the word "leg" could inspire. (Although that may be apocryphal.) The first bikinis were considered scandalously revealing, but they had dozens of times more material than a modern string bikini. There was a time when you weren't allowed to show nudity in movies at all; then we got the R rating; and now we have nudity all over pay cable, and a fair degree of it on commercial TV. And these days it's actually legal to go topless in public in New York State. That's why the 22nd-century humans of my novel Only Superhuman don't have a nudity taboo to speak of. I figure that it's the natural progression for a multicultural society in the future to have less of a problem with nudity than present-day Americans do.
Really, though, the American nudity taboo has been eroding for generations. There was a time when it was considered obscene to bare the leg of a table, because of the naughty thoughts that the word "leg" could inspire. (Although that may be apocryphal.) The first bikinis were considered scandalously revealing, but they had dozens of times more material than a modern string bikini. There was a time when you weren't allowed to show nudity in movies at all; then we got the R rating; and now we have nudity all over pay cable, and a fair degree of it on commercial TV. And these days it's actually legal to go topless in public in New York State. That's why the 22nd-century humans of my novel Only Superhuman don't have a nudity taboo to speak of. I figure that it's the natural progression for a multicultural society in the future to have less of a problem with nudity than present-day Americans do.
I always thought that the rise of the New Humans and their possible Influence could explain the changes between the federation society shown in TOS and in TNG (especially Season 1 and 2).
@Christopher: The Deltan Society you showed in Watching the Clock reminded me in some ways of the New Humans. Could the first contact between Humans and Deltans have something to do with their origin?
My feeling always was that Will Decker might have sought out his assignment to Delta IV to help him better appreciate his mother's connection to the New Human Movement.
So how could Star trek be utilized to depict the future acceptance of public nudity and help change current taboos? In other words, how do we depict this change without causing viewers to switch off their TVs?
Similar threads
- Poll
