A giant space cock has kidnapped a woman. They don’t make science fiction like this anymore.

It seems to me, that if a better world is objectively impossible then the highest achievable happiness in this world is to fight for a better one and die in the battle, before you experience your failure. This is why one should never fear dying for a good cause.

I don’t believe in “wisdom of the savages” – that is, the idea, that primitive cultures lived within limits of sustainability because of their deep understanding of environmental problems. Why would they need such wisdom? They possessed no real means to damage nature, why develop behavioral algorithms for protecting it? Granted, there has probably been some genial intellectual shamans and chieftains whose understanding of nature was deeper than that of your run-of-the-mill savages, but for ordinary hunters and gatherers depleting natural resources was just too much work. That was the main reason, why they didn’t do it. Where contemporary nature-wasting consumer differs from harmoniously living hunter-gatherer is the high-tech means and larger needs, artificially bloated by advertising magic. Other than that, they both just take what they need. Where colonial society delivered for primitives the tools (guns, for example) and motivation (like glass beads and fire water), in many cases these primitives themselves hunted and gathered their “holy lands” and “woodland brothers” to extinction. It seems to me, that on certain level, primitive way of life and consumer lifestyle have much in common. Both enjoy the freedom to take whatever they want when they want it. Only primitives actually have this freedom.

That’s why I believe that we don’t have much to learn from tribal cultures, unlike what some contemporary greens think. On the contrary, the problem is that we are too much like primitives – still behaving like nature’s children, taking all we want, while possessing technological might that goes far beyond our “mother”. I we hope to survive, we need to look for the wisdom of gods, wisdom that would match our technological prowess. Worryless live-for-the-moment freedom of the animals is no longer for our species.

Life is conflict. People argue, fight and kill each other for all kinds of reasons. Ethics, economy, faith – each area of thought is characterized by it’s own conflicts. Usually when I start to study the beliefs of the opposing factions, I come to the conclusion that both sides hold an element of a larger truth. But truth is a valuable thing and when people discover a piece, they try to make everybody believe, that it’s the only one. I’m not sure, why.

In order to protect their little piece of truth from those who hold other pieces, people construct entire forests, mountains of lies that are meant to show that their piece is all that is needed. So when you start to study an ideology, it takes lot of digging to find the true piece of the puzzle that holds all these lies together. Usually people give up before they do and simply conclude, that opponents fight and die for nothing at all.

History shows that when both factions have fought enough, they finally manage to eliminate most of the lies of the opposing side. What’s left is truth, so survivors from both sides can unite the true pieces into a new, larger piece of truth. And the cycle starts again, when they encounter another piece of truth, safely hidden in a shell of lies.

The truth seems to keep growing, which makes me think that perhaps one day, far, far in the future, someone finds out all the truth about everything. What happens then? Is thinking still possible when you know all the answers? Or does this future Mind stop in a metaphysical version of the heat death?

A few months ago I read Dan Brown’s Terror, which I did not particularly like, but which made me think about one thing.

Which is – how do gods die? It is unquestionable that they do. Pagan nature spirits: elves, pixies, bear people, wolf people, Father Pan, nymphs, satyrs and all that merry crowd died together with tribal way of life. Little gods of lakes, trees and hills died about when humanity adopted a new way of life.

New Gods ruled over entire natural forces and entities: they were gods of Sky, Sun, Earth and Sea. There was less of them now and they were more or less equally powerful.

Then, together with earthly feudal order rises a new brand of Heavenly order – a single Lord with numerous lesser servants – angels and saints. And a rival who was not just mischievous but thoroughly evil; an usurper.

Finally, with establishment of monarchy, a new, Absolute God becomes prevalent. A god who is perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful and does no longer need even servants – a god who is completely separated from its “power base”, as surely as monarch’s court was separated from peasants and serfs.

Looks like we have a pattern here. Gods of humanity are just that – gods of humanity. They are as we are. They die when we change and are replaced with new ones. When humanity found a lifestyle that enabled it to grow its own food we were no longer dependent on the gods of the hunting grounds and lost respect before them. Once we had cattle, the game became just a luxury snack and we no longer needed ask its forgiveness when we killed it. The game held no longer any power over men who had agriculture.

But now we became fearful of natural forces. Rain could bring the floods. Lighting could burn the house or fields. Sea could swallow the men who went out fishing. Together with humanity’s social organization changed the social organisation of gods and the nature of their power.

When the science appeared and humanity started to understand and control natural forces, scholars generally believed that religion would now disappear. I think it was Karl Marx who said – “belief of gods must disappear once real control over natural forces is established”. Hephaestus can’t compete with a steel factory. Zeus looks weak next to a power station. Jahweh’s burning bush or pillar of flame is pitiful compared to mushroom cloud of a nuclear bomb or the trail of a rocket.

And yet, with amazement the scholars observe that religion and worship endure; moreover, are prevalent. They aren’t unknown even among scientists! How could that be?

As so far the nature of society has helped us to understand the nature of Gods, perhaps we can now deduce from the nature of our God something about our society. Contemporary religious sects do not worship natural forces. Their God is not Lightning or Sea, much less is it a bear or a mountain. God has made one final transformation and become even more abstract, to take on its final and ultimate form. God of contemporary religions is thought of as The Cause, The Ruler, The Fate and The Law. In fact he’s pure, quintessential Power.

While it is true that we, as humanity, have learned to control and manage natural forces, we still have no control over social constructs that we use to control them. We may control Lightning, but we do not control Economy. We can redirect rivers but we can not prevent wars. Like Ancients, we live among forces that affect directly our lives and that we can’t control. Our God, the One Power, reveals it’s might in forces like Politics, Crime, Hunger, War and Poverty.

In order to move beyond the religion of Power, we need to understand and control Power itself; both on individual and social level – so it would release its grip on human life. As long as we haven’t done that, as long as there are uncontrollable forces beyond rational explanation affecting our everyday lives, religion of Power will endure.

About one year ago (give or take a few days) I started “blogging”.

The overall results of this project are… poor. To put it mildly. I haven’t achieved at single one of my original goals: I haven’t found more focus in thought, I certainly haven’t become a better writer and I feel sometimes as if my language skills have regressed over last year.

I haven’t gotten satisfactorily across a single one of my ideas, even as they have progressed considerably in my head. My first attempts at “published” rational analysis were poor and succeeding ones got worse. My overall rating to this blog project is currently Major Failure.

Why and how have I failed?

1. I have written very little. I graduated this year from another college, so that’s one excuse. I’ve played MMO-s. Most importantly, my day work is quite similar – I simply must write stuff… about thing’s I don’t care enough about. After a day of staring at a laptop screen I often can’t see a computer when I’m home.

2. My few analysis attempts are poor, to say the least: too short, too vague, too safe. Reason? Compared to thinking, actually explaining what you think about is a time-consuming, hard work. My thought may jump from physics to philosophy to economy in a single hour and have some brilliant insights, but to spell it all out with necessary explanations and proofs is much less fun. It’s work. I’m not really talkative, have no “way with words” and have found that the best “explaining environment” for me is in front of a whiteboard, where I can draw neat little images and arrows while blathering like a lunatic. Unfortunately, my friends and family do not carry whiteboards around.

3. I’m too safe. Internet is not anonymous. I can’t write about everything that comes to mind or simply copy-paste my personal notes here; I must be ready to take responsibility for my words, especially when they differ from common understanding of things. If this is so, my words should at least be well thought through; defensible, getting the correct point across. On the other hand, in order to write a coherent text, I need certain “burning” feeling – and my emotions change quickly. If I keep checking every fact, explaining every definition, I won’t finish anything. And so I’ve become vague and pointless and have actually about 2 times more drafts than posts – things I write and rewrite and then simply don’t publish. If I explain too much, I won’t finish. If I explain too little, I’m not getting the point across.

4. I have posted a lot of emo crap, in order make up for real content. Usually I get an impulsive idea while drunk and post it here before I thinking things through. The blog evolved into a depository of emotionally motivated, pointless pictures and chatter, becoming exactly the opposite of what I intended. Which was – to become better understood. More known to my friends and family.

Now, does this mean that this blogging thing is over? Perhaps a sane man would call it a day at this point. But if there’s something I’m bad at, its giving up. I’m physically unable to do that. I give in quite easily, but I’m completely unable to leave something be until I feel it’s over – an attitude that has so far gotten me two useless college degrees and few punches to face. Not to mention couple of bullet holes in my reputation. The last thing, however, means less and less to me as the years pass.

To celebrate this new beginning (and my 30th birthday), I’m choosing a different layout. Here’s to courage, focus and another year of published thoughts!

Ma ei ole linnuteadur,
igat lindu ma ei tea;
Kiirelt nagu kuulipildur,
loetlen need, kes on mul peas.

Ma tean varest, harakat;
ma tean kulli, kajakat.

Ma tean kukke, ma tean kägu,
koolibrit ja kakaduud.
Tunnen viu ja räägu nägu,
Vinti ja ta pesapuud.

Sõbrad rääk ja metsis, teder,
peoleo pessa viib mul redel;
Just sain teada, kes on hakk,
teda näitas mulle kakk.

Ma armastan õudusjutte – mitte sellepärast, et mulle meeldiks õudust tunda või ma usuksin vaimudesse, vaid sellepärast, et see on põhimõtteliselt ainus kirjandusliik, kus (enam-vähem) meie ajastu inimene saab kohtuda täieliku tundmatusega -ning ma armastan uurimist ja avastamist üle kõige.

Minu jaoks on tondijutuga kaasnev fiiling põnevus ja huvi – peategelane saab tihti teada midagi uut ja ennenägematut, enne kui ta ära süüakse või hulluks läheb; ta jõuab milleski SELGUSELE ning selguselejõudmine, arusaamine on vähemalt minu jaoks elus peamine rõõmu allikas.

Igatahes on mind läbiv tunne õudusjuttu lugedes selgelt positiivne. Kõige jubedam koht, loo kliimaks ajab mind tihti naerma – mitte üleolevalt või uskumatult vaid vaimustusest. See on umbes nagu kõndida linnatänaval ja näha silmapiirile kerkivat hiidlainet – hea õudusjutt tekitab sellise üleva, “elava” ja samas tasakaalustatud tunde. Tüüpiline näide kirjandusest – Lovecrafti “Call of Cthulhu”, “Alerti” põgenemine R’lyehist. Sel laeval oleks tahtnud olla!

Lisaks sellele, kuna õudusjutud on tihti üles ehitatud just tundmatuse faktorile, on nendes esinevad nähtused ja olendid tihtipeale palju originaalsemad kui ulmes ja fantaasiakirjanduses, kuigi viimasel ajal olen ka õuduste maailmas hakanud tuttavaid kohtama (Simmonsi jutus, millest ma tegelikult rääkida tahan, oli näiteks otsekohe selge, kes on “barguest” – Simmons unustab seda aga hiljem seletada).

Nagu mu õde ütleb, on juba Dan Simmonsi Hyperioni esimene osa üsna õudne ning Winter Hauntingus on tegemist puhtakujulise tondijutuga. Simmonsi Winter Haunting on ka kõige harivam õudusjutt, mida ma lugenud olen, ning seda maksab lugeda juba folkloori ja autorluse kohta tehtud tähelepanekute pärast. Ses mõttes leiab siit midagi ka inimene, kes muidu õudusjutte ei loe.

Samuti liigub lugu edasi just parajast tempos. Ma pidin tegelikult tol päeval töötama, kuid võtsin selle hommikul kätte ega suutnud enam käest panna enne kui läbi sai. Võib olla tõmbas mind nii sisse ka fakt, et õues valitsev ilm ja aeg olid täpselt sama mis raamatus ning peategelane minuga üllatavalt sarnane.

Simmonsi jutt ei ole kindlasti ilma vigadeta. Kohati läheneb ta kahtlaselt Stephen Kingi laadis bensiinijaama kassiiri ja poeriiulite sisu kirjeldamisele – mis ilmselt peab tekitama “realismi” tunde. Seda on õnneks harva.

Paljud küsimused jäävad ka lihtsalt vastuseta – ning näib, et kirjanik lihtsalt unustab need hiljem (mis siis ikkagi juhtus 1960nda aasta suvel? Kes pani kooli põlema? Ja miks nimetas tüüp arvutis end Barghestiks?).

Kuid otsustades selle põhjal, mida ma temast lugenud olen, julgeksin öelda, et Simmons on üks esimesi kirjanikke, kelle ilmumine ennustab postmodernismi sihitu, tõetu, ajalootu ajastu peatset lõppu.

Ta üks neist, kes on juba valmis tunnistama, et asjad on halvasti – ning see on lahenduse leidmise esimene samm. Kuid tõeliselt mingi lahendus välja pakkuda – see nõuab võimet vaadata ajalugu ja kultuuri kaine ja erapooletu pilguga, tõelise teadlase pilguga. Simmonsit takistab siinjuures tema ajastu ja ühiskonna emotsionaalsete eelarvamuste pagas; ilmne mõnedest kommentaaridest ja stseenidest nii Hyperionis kui Winter Hauntingus.

Kuid kui nii võtta, siis ei olegi kunstniku ülesanne leida kultuuri ja ajaloo kriisidele lahendusi – tema ülesanne on meile näidata, miks need lahendused on vajalikud, leida emotsioon mis nõuab olemasoleva maailma muutmist ning emotsioon, mis ütleb, kas meie tehtud muudatused on õiged.

Igal juhul on Dan Simmons see mees, kes lepitas mind minu ajastu ulmekirjandusega ning näib üldiselt olevat lugemist väärt materjal.

Lõpetuseks peab ütlema, et Winter Hauntingust inspireerituna otsustasin omale autosse mingi malaka vaadata. Kummaline küll, aga mul polnud seda veel.

I have become an internationally celebrated artist! O_o My picture of The Don has two fave’s on Deviantart