Foundation
Good question... First, you will understand lots of things easier if you read at least the first book of the Isaac Asimov "Foundation" series. Then, I've been researching this for a looooong time. Also you will waddle through lots of crazy stuff, trying to find the gems. I only started to find out, what information matters, and what don't, what is real and what is just nutjob ideas, after I met some particular people in real life. Also there are deep religious issues on this, and some fringe stuff (for example: the ex-wife and some more people related to a known member of Group A claimed…
That was always doomed for failure in the philosophy space. Mostly because there's not enough axioms. It'd be like trying to establish Geometry with only 2 axioms instead of the typical 4/5 laws of geometry. You can't do it. Too many valid statements. That's precisely why the babyeaters can be posited as a valid moral standard- because they have different Humeian preferences. To Anthropic's credit, from what I can tell, they defined a coherent ethical system in their soul doc/the Claude Constitution, and they're sticking with it. It's essentially a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics system…
Complexity and complacency kill. As you say, everything moves in cycles, and while it's easy to say that we "make the same mistakes", the reality is closer to "the same inevitable forces take effect". Our societies are driven by emotion, and by reactionary forces. Revolution leads to expansion, which leads to consolidation, which leads to narcissism, which leads to complacency, which leads to inner turmoil, which leads to revolution. I've recently re-read Asimov's Foundation series end-to-end, and his ideas of how an empire rises and falls, while quite clearly based on Rome, hold very true,…
Thanks for the response. While I hadn’t read the novel, I thought Children of Men was an excellent film and your comment had piqued my curiosity of how the film’s story came about. I found the following interview by Film Maker magazine¹: > Filmmaker: How did you become interested in adapting and then making Children of Men? > Alfonso Cuarón: It was when I realized that the premise of the book, the premise of infertility and humanity, could serve as a metaphor for the fading sense of hope that I feel humanity has [today]. It was an amazing opportunity. > Filmmaker: I also read that 9/11 was…
A perfect summary. "Foundation" trilogy is essentially a novelization of the generalized anthropic principle[0]: protagonists aren't special, the only reason we're reading about particular characters and not some others is because those people happened to be at the right place and time during pivotal moments in history[1]. The show, on the other hand, seems to be just another "special heroes with special powers direct the course of history". It wouldn't even be that bad if the show wasn't regularly referencing back to Seldon and psychohistory, essentially telling us one thing, but showing…
> All that made the original interesting is lost. The economist Paul Krugman of all people wrote a 'review' of each basically saying the same thing: > “Foundation” might seem unfilmable. It mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year. The story spans centuries; in each episode everything appears to be on the brink, and it seems as if only desperate efforts by the protagonists can save the day. But after each crisis, Seldon’s prerecorded hologram appears to explain to everyone what just happened and why…
I was really impressed with Terrence Mann's eye brow makeup (eye brow wigs, probably?) that were a really understated "special effect" to make Brother Dusk feel so related to Lee Pace. It took me episodes to realize that that must have been the one weird trick, but once I'd realized it seemed kind of obvious. His eyebrows look nothing like that in real life or other films/shows. (He was the bad guy in Sense8!) > The series was great at times and then completely flat for long strips in-between. Yeah, I'm still not entirely sure why they paced some of the show the way they did. That said they…
“A print-book!” It was hard to tell whether Dors was shocked or amused. “That’s from the Stone Age.” “It’s certainly pre-Empire,” said Seldon, “but not entirely so. Have you ever seen a print-book?” “Considering that I’m a historian? Of course, Hari.” “Ah, but like this one?” He handed over the Book and Dors, smiling, opened it–then turned to another page–then flipped the pages. “Its blank,” she said. “It appears to be blank. The Mycogenians are stubbornly primitivistic, but not entirely so. They will keep to the essence of the primitive, but have no objection to using modern technology…
A lot of Season 1 and Season 2 have been showing Hari and Gaal making huge mistakes. The Second Foundation is way behind schedule and probably going to be founded "in the wrong place" versus the books and almost seems like it won't be strong enough when it is needed to face The Mule. The "real" Hari ("Knife Hari") is shown to be a fallible slimeball just as much as the religion around the "fake" "Prophet Hari" gels around his seeming "infallibility". I think to some extent the TV show is showing a variation of the timeline with respect to the rules of psychohistory: it doesn't account for…
Group A, and B, have names, that they used themselves, but those names are too charged for me to use, people will misunderstand things, and think I am talking about something else. Group C probably has a name, but I don't know it. All Groups, maybe with exception of B, are not much cohesive and are easier to say who belong in them. So, I will say some organizations that BELONG to some groups (they are NOT the groups, they are PART of them, a small part by the way). Group A: Has on it the UN, and several countries. Also has on it some esoteric organizations and religions. Most people…