Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.startrek,net.sf-lovers
Subject: Followup to 'His was the most human...'
Message-ID: <1661@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 21:16:23 EST
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1661
Posted: Sun Feb  9 21:16:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 01:14:21 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 90
Xref: lsuc net.startrek:843 net.sf-lovers:5955


		  Followup to "His was the most human..."
			    by Mark R. Leeper

     There has been quite a lot of discussion on the net about an article I
posted claiming that calling Spock's soul "human" was insensitive.  The
article was intended to be light in tone, but it was also intended to
illustrate a gripe I have had with the series.  STAR TREK sets up a number
of circumstances in which logical (Vulcan) and emotional (human) approaches
to problem-solving are compared.  That is potentially a very interesting
comparison to make.  The problem is that the script-writer inevitably
contrives to have Spock's logical side lose.  In STAR TREK III McCoy even
comments on all those arguments that Spock lost.  Now since argument should
be an exercise in logic, anyone who uses pure logic on his/her side should
not lose an argument.  The best you can hope for against a (hypothetical)
perfect logician is not to lose against him/her.

     So how did Spock lose arguments?  In one episode Spock was in charge of
a lost shuttlecraft party.  The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking.  Spock
took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the
engines.  The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued.
Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the
emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do.  The
scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to
lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue.  I would have
thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script
has Spock accept it as an emotional action.  With arguments as contrived as
that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses.  It is
unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose
to it.  I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the
humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived.

     I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star
Trek" novel.  Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic
could see no way out.  McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack
turns the tide of the game.  Hurrah!  Another triumph for emotionalism over
logic.  One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of
check.  And for good reason.  Chess is a game of logic.  If there was a way
to get out of check, a logical approach would find it and Spock should have
seen it.  The scene is calculated to show the human approach superior and to
feed to egos of the reader, but it makes no sense that way.

     The thing is, this question of emotionalism versus rationalism is not
just an academic issue.  We live in a world in which large numbers of people
really do retreat from rationalism.  People turn to astrology, to mysticism,
to cults in increasing numbers.  A small part of the cause is that science
fiction films present an anti-rationalist/pro-emotionalist viewpoint.  STAR
TREK says emotion is better than logic; STAR WARS says, "Trust your feelings
[not your computer]."  WARGAMES says, don't trust your national defenses to
a computer.  Speaking of trusting your feelings, I am told that one of the
New York black-outs occurred because the computer governing the power system
told an operator to shut down the power to one borough and the operator
refused to do it.  That borough lost power anyway and the others followed it
like dominoes.  A whole city was blacked out rather than just one borough
because an operator trusted his feelings more than his computer.

     Actually Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal
as far as I am concerned.  He has both emotions and logic but under most
circumstances he is able to control the emotions and act as the logic
dictates.  It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems
coming to terms with Spock in being human.  Spock seems to be comfortable
with his origins when there isn't someone else trying to rub his nose in
them.

     I would still contend that if you have someone half white, half
American Indian, it would be in extremely bad taste to say in his eulogy
that he had the should of a white man.  And for the same reason, I think
Kirk's eulogy for Spock was extremely ill-considered.  Luckily, he may get
another chance.

     Between Usenet and e-mail I got several responses, ranging from two or
three people who entirely agreed with me (you know who you are and thanks)
to people who disagreed politely (mostly for whom the above has been
written).  The most fun I got from a response was from the one flame.
(Actually I expected flames from people who might have mistakenly thought I
was attacking Christianity.  Luckily none of those, though maybe people are
more sensitive about STAR TREK than religion!)  This flame asked me, who do
I think I am to criticize STAR TREK.  (Sorry, sir.  Who do I have to be?
Can I get a license for it someplace?)  The flamer also tells me that if I
don't like STAR TREK I don't have to watch it.  Actually I like some parts,
I don't like others.  But to respond to the flamer, imagine me standing up,
an angry grimace on my face, and yelling at the flamer, "Who do you think
you are to criticize my review?  If you don't want to read my stuff you
don't have to."  So there.


					Mark R. Leeper
					...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper