Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Dabeagle

The Wish

Recommended Posts

Thanks for keeping me up until 4am, Gee. :icon_rabbit:

'The Wish' is a cracking good read, irrespective of whether or not you get the science behind it. The characters are likeable and the premise is one I'll bet most of us have 'wished' for at some point. :wave:

A sequel? One can but hope. If Craig was wrong and Cornish didn't get entirely discombobulated, then he'd need to be stopped.

Kudos!

Link to post

Thanks for all of your kind comments everybody. You're gonna give me an inflated head.

I'm glad that you liked it. It was a fun story to write, a bit out there, a bit over the top (doomed!), and a bit of a challenge to try and make all the quantum physics stuff work out right with my layman's knowledge of it.

As for a sequel, well, I'm not too sure about that yet. I've had quite a few emails suggesting as much already, but I have one or two other things I'd like to finish up, so we'll see.

If I were to write a sequel though, Craig tells me it would start something like this:

Craig wiped the sweat off of his brow with his forearm and bounced the basketball once, twice. He looked at his grinning teammates and then found his parents' faces in the small crowd in the school gymnasium. His mom waved, which Craig pretended not to notice. His dad just smiled and rolled his eyes at his wife's antics. He knew what Craig must be thinking about that.

It hadn't been a great season, but it hadn't been that bad either. The final game now had two minutes left and they were down by a half dozen. Craig stepped up to the free throw line and again wiped his brow. He lifted the ball over his head and took aim. Trying to remember everything his coach and Joel had taught him he launched the ball and tried for a smooth follow through.

Swish. Nothing but net.

Craig grinned and looked down from the basketball net to see his friends' reactions.

The only problem was, they weren't there.

He looked around the gym. The ball was still bouncing after his shot, sending up small puffs of dust each time it hit the dirty gym floor. It echoed hollowly in the empty gymnasium.

Craig stood at the free throw line, almost obscured by dust, and looked around. He plopped down to the floor, suddenly bereft of energy.

"Oh fuck! Not again!"

Link to post

I was going to write that I found something missing in The Wish. But after reading Gee's post I realize that there's no reason to tell him that what's missing is chapter 24. Now that he's committed to a sequel, all is good in the world, and unlike Craig there will be more than just dust surrounding us.

Colin :icon_rabbit:

Link to post
It's the "here we go again" sequel!

It almost has to be, doesn't it.

Colin :atthebar[1]:

Link to post

Stories can take you out of "yourself" and put you into another time and place. They can do that in a way that affects your thinking; make you feel that you somehow belong in the story itself, as if you are not so much one of the characters, but that you need to relate the story to your own experiences in life just like the characters you are reading. It is all very cathartic. It is also rare in a truly meaningful way with the driving philosophy that occurs in The Wish.

Not to put too much importance on it though, but the intrigue of the paradox is somehow reminiscent of memory, of speculation, and even of the enigma of existence itself, but, and this is most important, in a thouroghly entertaining way.

Gee Whillakers has provided a first class adventure story with all of the above. Even the scientific exposition is handled entertainingly and much better than any B grade movie I can think of.

I must confess however to a problem with the term, Universes. The word Universe is derived from the latin if memory serves me correct, meaning "One World" and is academically used to describe all of creation including the creator. In other words Universe is the word we use to represent everything, including anything undiscovered or even what we cannot detect, along with other dimensions. In strict terms then it is not possible to pluralise Universe as Universes. Multiverse is used correctly.

However I see that even Richard Dawkins refers to Universes so I guess the strict definition of the word is now hopelessly lost.

As far as The Wish is concerned, I am more than happy to overlook this quibble.

It is with much pleasure that I award Mr Whillakers

the DesDownunder award for Excellence in Literary achievement in his thrilling story,

The Wish.

Enthman-redStarsAvatorSIZED.jpg

The only thing remaining for me to say is that I am not at all surprised that Stephen King hangs out at AwesomDude, but I have difficulty in understanding why he chose to use the name, Gee Whillakers. :lol:

Link to post
I must confess however to a problem with the term, Universes. The word Universe is derived from the latin if memory serves me correct, meaning "One World" and is academically used to describe all of creation including the creator. In other words Universe is the word we use to represent everything, including anything undiscovered or even what we cannot detect, along with other dimensions.

It used to in old-school science, but not any more.

Read the definition of Omniverse at this Wikipedia link, defined as "the conceptual ensemble of all possible universes, with all possible laws of physics."

The old concept of what a Universe was hasn't applied for some time, once they got into Quantum Mechanics. Now there's not just the Universe, but also a Multiverse, Metaverse, a Xenoverse, and the Omniiverse. New rules, new stuff.

In that context, Gee Whillakers' story idea works fine and is correctly described. There's thousands of science fiction and comic books that get into this same kind of concept. Go watch Inception.

Link to post
It used to in old-school science, but not any more.

Read the definition of Omniverse at this Wikipedia link, defined as "the conceptual ensemble of all possible universes, with all possible laws of physics."

The old concept of what a Universe was hasn't applied for some time, once they got into Quantum Mechanics. Now there's not just the Universe, but also a Multiverse, Metaverse, a Xenoverse, and the Omniiverse. New rules, new stuff.

In that context, Gee Whillakers' story idea works fine and is correctly described. There's thousands of science fiction and comic books that get into this same kind of concept. Go watch Inception.

Thanks Pecman, I was not aware that universe had been superceded by omniverse. (Neither is my online dictionary, but Wiki confirms what you say nicely.)

Yes I have seen Inception and noticed their use of of the plural form of universe. As I said I heard Richard Dawkins using it too.

I must have been off the memo list advising of the change. :lol:

Gee Whillakers story is so good it overrode any objections I might have had in my ignorance.

I think that education (the lack of it) is the real culprit here, but we do live in a world where English changes, I just wish that... No, perhaps I better not wish...

Link to post
...lots of over the top praise...

If my head was inflated before now it's reached epidemic proportions. I'm not sure it'll fit through any doorways now. Thank you so much Des for your kind words and, of course, for the award. I am more than pleased and proud to receive it.

The only thing remaining for me to say is that I am not at all surprised that Stephen King hangs out at AwesomDude, but I have difficulty in understanding why he chose to use the name, Gee Whillakers. :lol:

Well, Richard Bachman seemed to have already been taken...

:lol:

Link to post
I think that education (the lack of it) is the real culprit here, but we do live in a world where English changes, I just wish that... No, perhaps I better not wish...

Well, you were right until Quantum Mechanics happened. I'm with you: my formal science education pretty much faded out in the 1970s. :lol:

Read the Theory of Everything if you want to get your mind blown. Multiple universes is just the tip of the iceberg...

Link to post
Well, you were right until Quantum Mechanics happened. I'm with you: my formal science education pretty much faded out in the 1970s. :lol:

Read the Theory of Everything if you want to get your mind blown. Multiple universes is just the tip of the iceberg...

Thanks again Pec, I'll have a lookat the theory of everything, sounds like a must read. :wink:

I think however that Arthur Eddington, the physicist, was pretty close to at least a philosophical answer to it all when he said, "Something unknown is doing, we don't know what."

On the other hand we do seem to be getting an intuitive feel about our knowing that we don't know.

I'm not helping am I? :lol::lol:

Link to post
So there I was happily devouring chapters, watching the clock as I had to leave for an appointment, and then I got to a particular chapter and the universe took a left turn.

If you think that was a left turn, try King's Dark Tower series. Talk about multiple universe... that thing will make your head explode!

Link to post
On the other hand we do seem to be getting an intuitive feel about our knowing that we don't know.

Des, I was at a seminar about 10 years ago attended by approximately 100 people, and the speaker was talking about what is knowable. He drew a large circle on the white board behind him and said it represented all that was knowable in the universe. Then he asked us to visualize how much of that 100% that we actually knew. My estimate was about 1/10th of 1%...and that's probably high. He then drew a small pie shape in the circle to represent an average of what each one of us estimated to be what we knew out of what was knowable. He drew his at 1/2 of 1% (liers). Then he asked if anyone knew anything about brain surgery. Of course no one raised their hand. He asked a couple more questions about other esoteric topics that everyone had heard of but knew nothing about. These represented things we knew that we didn't know anything about. We knew they existed though. He then asked us to estimate how much we didn't know compared to how much we did know. Most of the audience responded with a figure of 10. There was was probably 10 times more that they didn't know than they knew. He then put another pie mark on the circle next to the first one representing the 5% that they knew that they didn't know. (1/2% x 10 = 5%) He then labeled the first pie shape "K" for "know." He labeled the second pie shape "NDK" for "know that you don't know." He looked at us and asked...."What about the rest of this circle?" I had an epiphany at that moment. He labeled the large pie shape left "DKDK." He then said, "The rest of that circle represents all that you don't know that you don't know. 94.5% of what is knowable in the universe is stuff that you don't even realize, you don't know that you don't know.

It put me in my place.

Link to post

Which reminds me of that Yentl song the great philosopher, Barbra Streisand, once sang:

"The more I learn, the more I realize, the less I know."

Ain't that the truth.

Link to post

Pec, I have fond memories of Yentyl. It was one of those movies where they managed to get the sound right with Barbra's voice soaring above the cosmos where the orchestra was playing.

Richard, thank you for your thought provoking story of your epiphany.

Socrates (via Plato) expressed the idea that we already know everything when we are born, and spend the rest of our mortal existence trying to find a way to remember it all. This is similar to Freud's idea (2500 years later) of making the unconscious, conscious; of the id becoming the ego, which has been described as a parallel to enlightenment in Zen, -Satori.

The problem for our Western minds is that we try to cerebrate the experience. We analyse it, we give it a name, instead of just experiencing what we sense. What we don't know is mysterious to us, and we intellectualise the unknown as well as the known. We try to use the mind to see itself instead of allowing it to be (itself.)

It's not that analysis in thought isn't useful, it is. It has given us the scientific method from which we gained medicine, tools, and even the nuclear bomb.

What it cannot give us is knowledge about what we can only intuit. Indeed when we try, we lose the existential experience. When we try to hold our breath, we lose it. It is this paradoxical logic as opposed to Aristotelian logic that has rendered the Eastern philosophies inaccessible to Western thought for so long.

But like your moment of epiphany, more and more people in both the West and the East are beginning to recognise the two ways of experiencing life in both cerebration and intuition. ( I am aware that the word 'intuition' falls short of what I actually mean, but it will have to suffice for the moment.)

One of the most profound steps for the Westerner is to realise the awareness of thinking that he does not know. Too many people use this awareness as an excuse to cease any further investigation into the meaning of life. They think it is enough to stop at the point of knowing that they do not know, and in most likelihood can never know. They have stopped too soon.

In this regard they have simply fallen for accepting the mind's trap to circumvent the development of the human capacity to sense beyond the centre of one's own existence. I have used the words intuit and intuition to represent this awareness of life beyond our own ego centre, but again paradoxically, we need that ego-experience to understand that it is our centre and not the centre of the Omniverse.

Once we acknowledge that our individual centres are simply fragments of the Omniverse we have an opening to what some Western mystics refer to as 'The Knowing,' or as I prefer to call it, 'Cosmic Consciousness,' where the id and the ego have become one in the Eastern sense of enlightenment, and the Western Psychological ideal of the fully developed human potential.

I am not here referring to, religions, trances or self hypnosis, I am just relating a quick (and inadequate) summation of what I have been able to read about by minds far better than mine, in discussing the investigation of Eastern and Western ways of experiencing life in search of meaning. In our existence, the meaning we give to our lives is as valid a meaning of life that any of us can hope for, but only if we exercise it with compassion and love for all sentient beings, even those of whom, we have yet to come to know.

*

So I guess that brings us back to Barbra's voice soaring above the cosmos in a way that heightens our experience of the ephemeral, the ethereal, the creative nature of our manifestation, our arts.

For as I said at the start the Ancient Greeks were well accustomed to the cathartic experience of the theatre, the spoken word concealing the under-world of the human condition. It was no accident that Freud named the parent-child relationship as the Oedipus complex. He knew the Greeks understood intuitively, what he spent so many years discovering, learning to express in psychological terminology.

But why wouldn't the Greeks understand it, you may well ask? After all they had a highly developed understanding and acceptance of same sex relationships. We have of course moved on from Freud's position. We are aware now that while Freud's interpretation of the Oedipus situation is psychologically valid, with the father-son jealousy and default incest with the mother, there is now wide acceptance that this does not cause homosexuality. Today's world is acknowledging that people love each other, and express that love sexually. Freud's era and culture could not have granted him the freedom to realise that, as we have, and as the Greeks accepted.

Indeed there are still some, as you may well be aware, that do not understand, they have not moved on, and have not adapted to what is becoming recognised as a birthright of every human being: to love regardless of gender.

Link to post
Socrates (via Plato) expressed the idea that we already know everything when we are born, and spend the rest of our mortal existence trying to find a way to remember it all....

Plato notwithstanding, when I was a teenager I discovered I did already know it all, and better than anyone else, especially my parents. A lot of teenagers appear to likewise contradict Plato's teaching.

Now that I am more mature I find I am struggling to remember what day it is, and whether I have zipped up (although by watching the eyes of passers-by I sometimes can figure that one out).

After years of searching for answers I believe I would have been better advised early on to have followed the path of the Buddha, rather than the rocky road left so mysteriously charted by the Greeks, paved with Roman good intentions, and sabotaged by the potholes, sinkholes, and washouts left for us to navigate by our successive Western 'civilizations.' I do not credit my schooling with what education I possess.

James

Link to post
Plato notwithstanding, when I was a teenager I discovered I did already know it all, and better than anyone else, especially my parents. A lot of teenagers appear to likewise contradict Plato's teaching.

Now that I am more mature I find I am struggling to remember what day it is, and whether I have zipped up (although by watching the eyes of passers-by I sometimes can figure that one out).

After years of searching for answers I believe I would have been better advised early on to have followed the path of the Buddha, rather than the rocky road left so mysteriously charted by the Greeks, paved with Roman good intentions, and sabotaged by the potholes, sinkholes, and washouts left for us to navigate by our successive Western 'civilizations.' I do not credit my schooling with what education I possess.

James

Actually,I think your experience coincides with Plato's idea. In my desire to refer to Socratic memory briefly, I did not elaborate on his idea that we know it all at birth and as we grow further from it, then so too do we forget our knowledge and thus struggle to remember.

This should not be confused with the average teenager who is convinced that they know everything...just ask one and they will tell you as much. :lol:

I can agree with you about the potholes of Western cultures and civilisations, but one of the reasons I mentioned the Greeks was to allude to the Socratic cave of illusions being paralleled to the illusions of the mind which cause all manner of suffering for which the East has found a way to alleviate through Buddhism, Zen included. (Please remember these are not theist religions.)

I also wanted to show the convergence of the parallel lines of thought in Western and Eastern ways of living as being paradoxical logic without reference to theistic beliefs.

We struggle today to make sense of the existential philosophies in light of our over population of the planet. Simple answers are harder to substantiate than they once were, but even so, each of us is faced with the question of our existence and how we answer that question determines our experience of life. Answer in the negative, in denial of life, and you regress to infantile dependencies on parental, tribal, authoritarian figures. Answer in the positive, with hope, and the opportunity to realise our potentials as loving, creative human beings is a real possibility.

To not be in search of such a positive answer is to court insanity.

Link to post

Knowledge and understanding are a journey. Just because there is mystery does not mean that it is unknowable. It simply means that we aren't there yet.

The province and occupation of the thinker, scientist, philosopher and progressive is to push the cart forward.

Ready, set, PUSH! :wink::lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Knowledge and understanding are a journey. Just because there is mystery does not mean that it is unknowable. It simply means that we aren't there yet.

The province and occupation of the thinker, scientist, philosopher and progressive is to push the cart forward.

Ready, set, PUSH! :lol: :lol: :wink::cat:

I'M PUSHING!

Okay, where are the rest of those guys when we need them?

Colin :lol:

Link to post


×
×
  • Create New...