How many of you have actually read this famous story?


"Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" (1818) was written by an eighteen year old teenage girl.


Most of what people know about Frankenstein is from the 1931 film and the stage plays before that.


Just goes to show you that what people think is in a book is not always what is actually in the book.


##########


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2024 12:21AM by anybody.

I read it. I would love to see a movie that is faithful to the book.

A modern version could be based on genetic engineering. Once we succeed in making a human from scratch, then who is God?

The subject has come in a thread here or there. There are various takes on it, but it's the belief that further advances in and fusion of AI, nono-mechanics, robotics, and some sort of neuro-computer bio-interface will merge futuristic technology with the human "essence," and people (or at least some people) will achieve immortality.

The serpent declined comment.

I was trying to get at the difference between what is written in texts and what people *think* is written.


A good example is the common Evangelical belief that "god" is mentioned in the US Constitution when in fact there is no mention.


I don't think you can download the human consciousness into a computer. You might be able to create a copy of a person's memories and base an AI on that, but that's all.


Mormons think that souls are downloaded into "worthy" human bodies from Kolob, but this is supernatural superstition.


Raelians want to clone people to make copies, but this is true only in the biological sense. Your clone would be like having a younger sibling or cousin that looked like you, but would not be you with totally different life experiences.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The subject has come in a thread here or there.
> There are various takes on it, but it's the belief
> that further advances in and fusion of AI,
> nono-mechanics, robotics, and some sort of
> neuro-computer bio-interface will merge futuristic
> technology with the human "essence," and people
> (or at least some people) will achieve
> immortality.
>
> The serpent declined comment.

Transhumanism, genetic engineering and surgical modification will unleash a host of Frankenstein's monsters on the world, many of them bitter at their creators. Maybe even those who are stupid enough to have a number of cheap tattoos and piercings. ;)

It also reminds me a lot of child prodigies. Many of them grow up to be unhappy and/or mentally ill due to the lack of a proper childhood.

> It also reminds me a lot of
> child prodigies.  Many of them
> then grow up to be unhappy and/
> or mentally ill due to the lack
> of a proper childhood.


This is why I'm not growing up until I can get it right!

I believe this is as close as we have now.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holocaust-stories-artificial-intelligence-60-minutes-2022-03-27/

As a foreword, my background is in communication arts (originally I wanted to become a radio disc jockey). My undergraduate degree is in that field, and I continue to follow the radio industry even though I've never worked in it for pay.

I bring this up to introduce you to a very basic communication theory proposed by the late Marshall McLuhan, a theory that I was taught during my freshman year at college. McLuhan's theory? "The medium is the message."

Now I've never read Mr. McLuhan's materials (they weren't in braille), but here is how the professor interpreted it for me and my classmates. The professor said that what Mr. McLuhan was alluding to was the idea that because different media have different strengths and weaknesses, messages sent through these media will differ, sometimes wildly, from the original, depending on the individual media type used.

For example, books and novels are very good for getting across ideas. While novels especially often have action scenes, many also have long philosophical passages clarifying the author's ideas aboutthis or that subject. Think of the various John D. MacDonald mystery and detective novels about Travis McGee as an example of how this works. While these novels have a lot of action, there are also a lot of long passages where Mr. MacDonald explores real-world subjects such as economics where he often posits his own theories on how things actually work. You can easily do that with books.

Television and movies, on the other hand, are highly visual media. Telling successful stories through them requires having a lot of action; otherwise, your viewers would become bored and switch the channels. Therefore, if you transfer John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee stories to those media (and some were prior to John D. MacDonald's death many years ago), you would highlight the action scenes and pretty much ignore the philosophical passages that would be hard to show visually.

Beyond the content, there is also the matter of time. While individuals can spend hours at a time reading a novel (I once spent 30 hours in a row reading Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations,"), the same doesn't apply to TV and movies. Most people are willing to sit for somewhere between two and three hours watching a single movie on TV or in the theater. The time factor is why, for example, it's been so hard to make a faithful retelling of J. R. R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings," into a movie--if you place all of the actions described in the three books onto a movie screen, you would be looking at an astounding 15 hours or more of movie viewing time.

The "Lord of the Rings," trilogy brings up another factor that needs to be considered when explaining why novels and the movies based on those novels are not exactly the same; namely, the social mores of the time. When J. R. R. Tolkien wrote the original trilogy, his female characters were only mothers, daughters, and wives supportive of the male characters. In the most recent attempt to make the trilogy into a movie, some of the female roles became more outspoken precisely because social mores about the roles of females in modern Western societies have changed.

Now, I've never read the original "Frankenstein" novel, and I've watched (listened) to the movie only half-heartedly a few times when I was a child. However, reading the Wikipedia synopsis at the provided link, my best guess as to why the movie version was changed from the novel is that the action scenes in the novel would have been too expensive to produce and most people probably wouldn't have wanted to see a three or more hour movie about a scientist chasing his creation across the earth. And, if I remember what my 11th grade teacher said about the novel, the book is full of philosophical and other passages that could not be easily transferred to the visual media.

I know many evangelicals who believe that the Constitution is an inspired document written to underline the writers' Christian beliefs. Many Mormons believe that too. I am not convinced that the actual mention of god in it is "common belief". More an assumption of God's underlying presence in the document than his actual mention. Unless, of course you have actual evidence and I am reading something in your post that is no actually there.

Kentish, the problem is that you have this large segment of the American Evangelical population that lives in a totally closed world with "alternative" facts promulgated as truth similar to what Mormons did for decades with their closed information space -- but on a much expanded level.

##########

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/22/23036178/many-americans-say-god-inspired-the-constitution-except-that-part-about-guns-pew-research-marist/

As a growing group of scholars warns against viewing the United States as a Christian nation, new research shows that many Americans see a link between the Constitution and God.

More than half of U.S. adults (55%) believe the Constitution is inspired by God, according to the Faith in America survey, which was released in March by Deseret News and Marist Poll.


########

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/28/politics/election-misinformation-conspiracy-theories-what-matters/index.html

People are surprised that God is not in the Constitution

WOLF: A theme throughout the show is a belief among Christian nationalists that the US is a Christian nation and that Christianity is laced throughout the Constitution and the founding documents. There are some interesting moments in the show where it dawns on people that actually the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution. Was that something you expected? Or is it something you stumbled upon?

O’SULLIVAN: There are so many strands to what is happening in the country right now, especially when it comes to trust and distrust in democracy, and Christian nationalism is one of them. We wanted to show in this documentary how two of these strands are kind of intertwining.

When it comes to Christian nationalism specifically, the reasons that we went down that route are 1) it’s something I hear all the time at these events and 2) there is increasing awareness about it.

Tim Alberta had a very good book last year about it.

(Note: Watch CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interview Alberta.)

More so than anything else, it was just from speaking to evangelical and other Christian pastors who are really worried right now about what they’re seeing, how their faith is being weaponized in a way to attack democracy.

A lot of it is not new in terms of this kind of rapid weaponization of conservative Christianity, if you want to call it that, but I think there’s an urgency now that we hadn’t seen before.

Pastors have seen members of their congregation, members of their flock who leave because their sermons weren’t political enough or weren’t directly supporting Trump as the candidate.

When it comes to God in the Constitution, pastor Caleb Campbell puts it pretty well in the documentary when he says that he sits down with fellow evangelicals — he’s a theological evangelical and a lot of people assume that the Christian God is all over the Constitution and the founding documents, which is not the case at all.

There’s nothing wrong with being a Christian. There’s nothing wrong with being a patriot. But what is really happening with Christian nationalism is that they are pushing a very specific type of Christianity at the expense of other people’s freedoms.

I have read Alberta's book and agree with his viewpoint. I share his view that it is a problem within Christianity in the United States. What I do not share is the kind of paranoia over it that seems to drive your constant posts on the subject. I guess I can ignore your posts but I do wonder if you have any other subjects to talk about on a recovery from Mormonism board

The next time you hear someone talking about "privilege," this is what it is.

You don't see the need for concern.

You don't see the need for worry.

That's what privilege is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2024 05:09PM by anybody.

That's absurd. Kentish is not out there hurting people.

Disagreement on one or several points with you does not make him the enemy.

Nor did I say Kentish was the "enemy."

I've heard the term many times, and yes it gets thrown about and misused.

But being able to not worry about something is a form of privilege -- like a fish not having to worry about water.

> But being able to not worry about something is a
> form of privilege

That is the sort of arrogance--"everyone must share not only my views but my priorities--that alienates potential allies.

Ever read "Les Miserables?" What drives these crazy fundies?

I don't know.

I just hope they don't try to enforce some kind of go after anybody anywhere who either helps someone get an abortion or a family with trans kids escape.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever read "Les Miserables?" What drives these
> crazy fundies?

And yet you often exhibit precisely the binary world view that informed Javert's thinking--or, alternatively, the factionalism that brought the Bolsheviks to power and the Mensheviks and SRs to the graveyard.

It might be helpful to read Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. The transition from negative liberty to positive liberty is a dangerous one.

Yeah, I don't know what you're trying to say. I know Arendt well and have cited her numerous times on this board.

Arendt, Berlin, Leo Strauss, Morgenthau: all the great Jewish thinkers from Germany were on the same page about this. None of them support your approach to progressive thought and politics.

Arendt in particular warned frequently about the dangers of binary thinking about social issues. In Origins of Totalitarianism she highlighted the danger of uniformity and how such thinking plays into the rise of authoritarian mass movements.

On Revolution is even more explicit. She says the schisms in liberalism are what turned the French Revolution, as opposed to its American antecedent, into a bloodbath.

The American public and academia hated what she wrote. Why? Because they preferred to think, like you, in moral absolutes. It is that quintessential arrogance--the belief that there is One True Set of Beliefs--that explains American extremism on the left and, in the McCarthy Era and now, the right.

Here's another example: Rashomon.


Different people see the same thing and interpret it in different ways.


Our nation is facing the most severe breakdown in cohesion since the decade before the Civil War.


This isn't a mere political dispute.


The idea of what America means is at stake.


This is the disintegration of a common set of values that were once shared or claimed to be shared by the entire country.


Many foreign policy analysts have said that if they were looking at the USA as another country, they would predict that the nation would be on the path to civil war within the next five years.


The fact is there is a not so small number of people who no longer see their place in a democratic society and want to create some kind of religious, racist fundamentalist dictatorship since they see no other alternative for them. I am not alone in this observation. The quirks of our system give them more influence than they would normally have in a more democratic setup.


If you had asked me when I was in college if the USA was on the path to some kind of Taliban or Handmaid's Tale type rule, I would have laughed at you. TV preachers might have had their local cable access channels or an audience on cable TV, but they were just a fringe group. Not any more. The inmates want to run the asylum, and their followers don't see any other democratic alternative anymore. They want to make what they call "God's Law" the law of the land, and if that means abandoning democracy so they and only they can run the show, then so be it. They are on a "biblical" crusade to make the America of their imagination come to life as fact.


It's perplexing to me why someone can't see that, but that's not moral absolutism. I'm not saying I'm "better" or "superior." Not by a long shot.


CNN recently did interviews with people who were surprised to find out that what they've been told about the US Constitution being created by God and so forth wasn't actually true. Watch for yourself:


https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/business/video/misinfo-nation-god-constitution-donie-osullivan-the-whole-story-tws-digvid


Now here's the problem. I too want to to make the America of my imagination come to life as fact -- but that vision is one of liberty, equality, and justice for all -- and not just some. This vision is the exact opposite of what the fundamentalists want. That's why this isn't political. It's about two different ideas that can't exist together in the same place and time.

That's the the moral dilemma that I see.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2024 10:11PM by anybody.

Oh, I totally agree with your stated goal: I just don't think you recognize the degree to which your approach resembles that of your foes.

Watch:


-------------------
> I too want to to make the
> America of my imagination come to life as fact --
> but that vision is one of liberty, equality, and
> justice for all -- and not just some.

Sounds great.


----------------


> This vision
> is the exact opposite of what the fundamentalists
> want.

Agreed.


-------------------
> It's
> about two different ideas that can't exist
> together in the same place and time.

That's where you go astray. The opposite of binary thinking is not binary thinking. If you apply that dichotomous approach to your own friends and allies, one day you end up alone.

You really should read Arendt.

I don’t understand why you’re coming at anybody so hard.

I know you don't.

Oh. My. Me, too? Feisty!

What’s that about removing the plank from your own eye first?

Try to remember to turn off the lights when you guys are done.

"I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

-- Voltaire

LW, I'm not saying it's my way or the highway.

The fundies are saying it's their way or no way at all.

I don't care what they say or how many times a day they pray, or whatever else they do.

They think they are on a mission from god to set up biblical law or whatever they call it -- and it doesn't matter to them if other people disagree. They don't care -- just like the Taliban or mullahs in Iran.

The point Arendt makes again and again is that when the liberal and/or moderate forces turn against each other in an internecine struggle for ideological purity, they grow weaker and can no longer check the shared challenge.

It's a general principle. When the French Revolution devolved into leftists attacking leftists, those groups paved the way for Napoleon's assumption of power and establishment of a dictatorship. When the Mensheviks and and SRs came to see each other as enemies, they paved the way to Bolshevik tyranny.

Arendt shows the same thing in more respectable movements. When the Italian center and left fragmented, it opened a path forward for Mussolini. When the Weimar center fractured, it created an unprecedented chance for the Nazis to seize power. In the 1970s the same thing happened in Kampuchea, in Iran, in Afghanistan. The exception--which Arendt thought so important as to devote an entire book to the subject--was the American Revolution, in whose revolution the center and left put aside their differences and kept their eye on the prize: defeating the British and establishing a constitutional republic.

Taking in that sense one example--there are others--your constant critiques of Kentish and his fellows, who share most of your political values, are not productive. Do you really want to alienate them by insisting on portraying them as the enemy? Does a smaller group of allies make you stronger?

The point that Arendt made time and again and which you seem not to have grasped, is that cooperating with people who share most of your views is wise and emphasizing the differences in the name of some sort of ideological purity, is not.

It's simple. If you can't tolerate differences of opinion within your own camp, you won't win the larger battle.

“It's simple. If you can't tolerate differences of opinion within your own camp, you won't win the larger battle.”

So you’re saying that *you* are tolerant of differences within your own camp while excoriating people who express views that are different from yours? Do you hear yourself?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > But being able to not worry about something is
> a
> > form of privilege
>
> That is the sort of arrogance--"everyone must
> share not only my views but my priorities--that
> alienates potential allies.

Friends are a thousand times better than "allies".

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The next time you hear someone talking about
> "privilege," this is what it is.
>
> You don't see the need for concern.
>
> You don't see the need for worry.
>
> That's what privilege is.

Privilege is when someone went to private school, and then lectures working class people on equality.

Teachers see it. Librarians see it. Health care providers see it. LGBTQ people see it. Minorities see it. Many women see it.

A lot of people can't see it because they don't walk the same path. It is what it is.

The US constitution may be more pagan than Christian if it was heavily influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy.
https://www.history.com/news/iroquois-confederacy-influence-us-constitution

Jefferson's "nature's God" is suspiciously closer to the "great spirit" of Native Americans than the monarch God of Europeans.

https://www.history.com/news/iroquois-confederacy-influence-us-constitution

The Native American Government That Helped Inspire the US Constitution
The constitutional framers may have viewed Indigenous people of the Iroquois Confederacy as inferior, but that didn't stop them from admiring their federalist principles.


The Iroquois Confederacy was in no way an exact model for the U.S. Constitution. However, it provided something that Locke and Montesquieu couldn’t: a real-life example of some of the political concepts the framers were interested in adopting in the U.S.

The Iroquois Confederacy dates back several centuries, to when the Great Peacemaker founded it by uniting five nations: the Mohawks, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, the Oneida and the Seneca. In around 1722, the Tuscarora nation joined the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee. Together, these six nations formed a multi-state government while maintaining their own individual governance.

Probably as much to do with the Boeotian League and the other classical models that the American rebels tended to look to. They did not hold the natives in high regard.

Our politicians have been psychopaths since day one?

Long ago when I was a baby teacher, there was a theory of reading that I read about in which reading is considered a transaction between the text and the reader (looking on the web, Louise Rosenblatt appears to hold this view.) The idea is that people bring their own experiences to the text, and that comprehension happens somewhere between what the author intended and what the reader brings to the equation.

It's the same thing in art. I majored in studio art in college. We were taught that your *idea* of what something is, or what something looks like, can actively interfere with an accurate painted or drawn interpretation of an object. A lot of art instruction is finding ways to circumvent those mistaken *ideas,* which our brains gladly latch onto. For instance, if you are copying a pictue, it is often helpful to turn the picture upside down in order to break your brain's idea of what the picture is about. When the picture is upside down, all you see are abstract lines that can often be copied rather accurately. It's a great parlor trick.

And I think the same thing happens with people. As a young person, I remember falling in love with my idea of who a young man was, as opposed to the actual man. I assumed that he was raised with the same values and morals that I was, despite subtle clues to the contrary.

I think that our minds are constantly projecting onto reality.