From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Unbeliever fades back in...
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:09:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In alt.callahans, byers@cl2.cl.uh.edu (Unbeliever) writes:

> Unbeliever stirs when he hears the following...
>> 
>>When he first falls into his delusion, he engages in all sorts
>>of irresponsible behavior, because he believes it is a delusion
>>that will cost him his life.
>> 
>>Then, after everything within the context of the delusion is
>>destroyed due to his inaction, he decides that one needs
>>to be true to one's delusions after all, a conclusion which
>>is, at best, deranged.
> 
> STAYED IN THE BAR this time?], "I think his conclusion is more like,
> it doesn't MATTER if this is a delusion or not.  He realizes the fallacy of
> 'situational ethics', and decides to 'be true' to himself and others,
> REGARDLESS of the reality of the situation.  He 'found the still point, in the
> crux of the paradox', as it were.  He decides NOT to decide about the reality
> of The Land, because it doesn't matter.  Regardless of the reality of the
> situation he finds himself in, HIS ACTIONS ARE STILL HIS OWN."

Your interpretation is actually closer to the intent of the text than
mine, although I was mostly being uncharitable.
> 
> 
> >I like the covenant books, and I actually like the character of
> >covenant, but it is rather difficult to see him as anything other
> >than irredeemably insane, and the heroic course would have been
> >to refuse to EVER accept the reality of the delusion.  A slighly
> >less heroic course may have been to accept responsibility before
> >his action led to all sorts of destruction. 
> 
> "I don't think he ever DID accept the reality of the delusion.  He simply
> decided that reality is a shaky concept.  What is reality?  If you experience
> something, it is REAL, at least, to YOU.  And he reacted accordingly."
> 

I actually do not recall if he accepted the reality or not, but that
is moot for the reason pointed out, however, I still do not like the
moral message sent.  Delusion should be resisted regardless of
the consequences.  What if his delusion had been that god was speaking
to him and tellling him to lure people into his basement and eat their
hearts?  Of course, Covenant's ethics would theoretically prevent him
from doing this, but I am projecting the moral of this book into the
real world.  I still maintain that the heroic act would be to
resist the delusion.  The consequences of HIS act are strongly
suggestive of suicide.  He gave in to the delusion that he thought
was meant to kill him.  This is suicide.
 
> 
> 
> >The basic message that comes out is, "be true to your delusions." 
> >This is, of course, a fairly dangerous moral.
> 
>"This statement made me think over my position, long and hard.  Dangerous?
>Well...... yes.  After all, the delusions COULD encourage him to believe he is
>healthy, and to forget about his VSE's.  But I think the alternative of
>refusing to accept Covenant's 'delusions' (and I'm not prepared to say that The
>Land>IS< a delusion, from the standpoint of the books), is far MORE dangerous. 
>It was when he was convinced that The Land was a dream, that he broke down and
>committed rape. And while Lena may have only been imaginary, WHAT HE DID (in
>his mind) WAS REAL.  By denying The Land, he would be denying all resposibility
>for his actions while there.  By accepting The Land, he would go forever
>insane. This is why he took the middle road.  He did neither... and both.  He
>treated The Land like Shroedinger's Cat.  He put it in a box, and left it in an
>indeterminate state.  He treated the people and their cause as though they were
>real, while all the while refusing to give up and actually believe in them."
>

Yes, your defense is adequate.

> 
> 
> >The book is attempting to affirm life and the love of existence and
> >the need for responsibility, but it does it in an extremely strange
> >way that sends some awfully mixed messages.
> 
> "I can see why others think so.  I won't even deny the possibility that I am
> reading infinitely more into these books than the author ever put there...
> but I don't believe it for a second."

No, I think you are reading what the author intended.  It is I who
am projecting the suggestions of the book into odd situations.

> 
> 
> >Covenant failed in his struggle to reject destructive delusion.
> 
> "Or succeeded in answering the Fundamental Question of Ethics."

Possibly.

doug