|
Hi Ayten,
Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad that the "science paper" was
enjoyable to read; that was one of my main goals. I wanted to avoid the
bombastic element that seems to often swell up when it's a non-fiction version
of "she said he said"...
To answer your questions:
Ayten Aydin wrote: I found the hell is a very liberal and comfortable
place to be in, also ably administered by an intelligent, liberal,
just and listening guard. Now being much more illuminated after the
interview with Rosen, the same "Diavolo" may open the barrier between the Hell
and the Paradise to be, so that both sides equally illuminated looking
for more. Could that be the theme of your next work?
Well, my intentions with the character of the devil were multiple.
On the one hand, I wanted a skeptical audience, but not a prejudiced (orthodox)
one. The devil certainly delivers on both counts. But I wanted to convey certain
truths about my father also. One is the fact that he tended to react with
curiosity towards the unknown rather than fear. Secondly, he had a knack for
finding avenues to discuss things with groups of people you might never expect,
like Jehova's Witnesses knocking on his door, hoping to convert him... he was
known to invite such people in and engage in a very knowledeable
discussion, asking them to resolve some of the paradoxical situations which are
a built-in part of that faith, because of its history and teachings, etc...
which tended to result in the missionaries developing an urgent desire to leave
him alone and get out of there (and go consult their bibles to see if what he
referred to really was in there... and it was!). So, his behavior with the devil
was entirely consistent with how he reacted to "left field
phenomena".
I also wanted to illustrate the fact that he could find ways to
appreciate circumstances that most people would be put off by and he
would be put off by circumstances that many people would consider heavenly. As
he said; What most people consider to be adequate thinking is often
not adequate for my needs, and I have also found that my needs seem to
differ from most other people's. That's practically a direct quote
of his, to me, in a discussion about these things long ago. Furthermore,
whatever is labeled "unpleasant" is only perceived as being so in relation
to the memory of something "pleasant", or some cerebral midpoint of
neutrality between two mind-labeled sensations. Any label, then,
is likely to vary greatly from one person to the next or from one stage of
life to the next. I love certain foods now that I used to find horribly
strong-tasting, for example. That's where the _expression_ "It's an acquired
taste" applies. Consider the case of a caterpillar needing certain
habitat, certain food sources, and having certain modes of dealing with its
requirements and dangers, etc. After this organism has finished pupating
and has entered the next phase of life, that habitat and those food
sources would not sustain it. They're all wrong for it. Now, consider this kind
of metamorphosis in a mental form; in other words, the caterpillar is a
metaphor for a way of thinking and learning, not physical form.
I also wanted to convey something of the notion that relations are
going to apply even in Hell; that there will be "bad" and there will be
"worse"... so what is bad, in relation to worse? (And such
relations would also apply in heaven! So, if God has created such a relational
universe, then "good" is only good in relation to something else, something not
good.) In addition to that, I wanted to incorporate the idea that information is
powerful, that relations create information, that a relation and the information
it inspires/creates can change the context... etc. Perspective can be all that
is required to make something ugly into something beautiful, and the inverse is
also true.
On the other hand, as I was writing this story, I was building in a
lot of deliberate ambiguity: The story can be interpreted in many ways and
could progress in many ways. For example, perhaps this really is Hell and
there really is a devil, in which case, the situation will play out in that
direction. What kind of things will Robert discover in studying the epistemology
of Hell? Will he discover entailment patterns that even the devil wasn't aware
of? What would be God's reaction to THAT?!
Or, maybe this isn't really Hell and the ugly guy with the
horns isn't really the devil... Maybe it's actually God, testing Robert to
see if he can be corrupted ("Hey, y'wanna help me get back at Him?!
He shafted you just like He shafted ME!"). When the devil "seems
to" fall asleep, maybe he's still perfectly aware of everything Robert does
and thinks. Robert doesn't behave any differently, doesn't flip him the "bird"
or make other rude gestures... Which is why he's rewarded with his pipe and a
footrest and utter peace...
Or, maybe it's neither of those scenarios and this is just the last
vestige, after death, of a human perspective on existence. Like the Matrix,
perhaps all that is required is for Robert to see that "There IS no spoon". (If
you didn't see the first Matrix movie, there's a scene in which we
meet a kid who could bend spoons with his mind. Neo, the main
character, asked him how he did it. That line was the kid's
response. He told Neo that we have only to realize that what we see is
merely an illusion, and the spoon will bend.) If this is the scenario in
Robert's case, what will happen when Robert comes to this realization? Will he
finally see what really exists for human consciousness (or
soul) after the human body dies? What might that be?
I can come up with several additional potential
scenarios, which are increasingly sci-fi oriented, to explain the situation
Robert finds himself in in the story... For example, maybe "life" isn't what we
think it is, and therefore death isn't the opposite of life as we define it...
And, of course, there's always the old standby: He was just
dreaming.
Needless to say, I have my own preferences among all of these
possibilities, but I wanted to leave readers the freedom to
imagine.
Judith
PS: Ayten, I'll take a look at the book you mentioned.
Thanks!
Recently I read a science fiction, with a great delight, of a
well-known English Mathematician 'Ian Stewart' entitled "Flatterland" which is a
kind of a sequel to Edwin.Abbott Abbott's masterwork "Flatland" written in late
in 1900s, you may have read it already.The Ian's book finishes as its last
chapter (18) headed 'The Tenth Dimension" with the following greatly suggestive
short write-up as follows:
|