Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Version 1.0 Netnews CMS/BITNET 5/19/85; site PSUVM.BITNET Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!miq From: MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Mark Leeper's third "Most Human" article Message-ID: <4474MIQ@PSUVMA> Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 03:30:25 EST Article-I.D.: PSUVMA.4474MIQ Posted: Fri Feb 28 03:30:25 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 00:19:56 EST Expires: Sat, 15-Mar-86 00:00:00 EST Lines: 149 OK, hang on. It's my turn to jump into the fracas. >>>In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock >>>lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock] >>>should not lose an argument. >> >>He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments. >I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock >have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of >apparent victory? Perhaps he was puzzled at their victorious smiles? Look over the old episodes more carefully-- you'll see that McCoy lost most (if not ALL) of his arguments with Spock (and usually was reduced to ranting & raving. "You're the most cold-blooded person I've ever known!"). >>Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven": >> >>>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. >> >>Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action. >But it wasn't an illogical action. It is a contradiction in terms to >be logical to take an illogical action. In this case the logical >action is to take whatever action is possible. The emotional response >would be to either do the same or to give in to pessimism and not try. >I would rather have the logical entity making the decisions, not an >emotional one. Emotions are, by Vulcan definition, illogical. Spock admitted to his act being one of "desparation," and therefore emotional, and therefore, illogical. However, he argues that such an act was their only hope, and therefore it was the logical thing to do. In short, it was logical to take an illogical action. Paradox resolved, and Q.E.D. >>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; >>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different,neither is superior. >>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. >Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved >thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what >situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one. >An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly >programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that >programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the >emotional approach every time. There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. "The Captain plays most illogically-- I expected him to move his rook." >>>Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . . >>>It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . . >>>Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else >>>trying to rub his nose in them. >>I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of >>"Star Trek: The Motion Picture". >Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something >better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that >creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I >know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or >creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come >together very well. Why is any story that has Spock take a good look at the value of his human half "contrived??" As far as creativity and logic being mutually exclusive, I saw no indication of that in ST I. What I did see was Spock realising that "...with all his amassed knowledge, V'ger is barren, cold," and that "Logic and knowledge are not enough." These were Spock's own words-- and they appear in the novelised version of ST I by Gene Roddenberry. (I know, I know, an appeal to authority isn't a valid basis for a logical argument.) >>The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had >>tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to >>terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole >>person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of >>the first Star Trek movie is about. >I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul >wasn't human. If anything it was better than human. If you mean "human" as humans generally are today, I agree 100%. If you mean it in the sense of the human ideal, I'd say Spock represented that ideal precisely. We humans have a pretty high image of ourselves, but it's not necessarily unattainable. >>> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3). >>Context, please? >Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't >had a chance to go back and find the line again. >>>[the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would >>>have denied . . . >>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain." >He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you. He did point out in ST II that he wasn't human-- in the physiological sense. The scene I believe you refer to is: "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?? No human could tolerate the radiation in there!" "Doctor, as you are so fond of observing, I am not human." Beyond the fact that he was referring to his physical makeup, the only reason he said it at all was to get McCoy to move out of the way. One final note: I think you misunderstand the basis of the Human-Vulcan conflicts in Star Trek. From what I've seen, they're based on the Vulcan's cold, machine-like attitude vs. the compassion and warmth associated with humans. (Idealistic maybe, but not that far off base.) Emotional responses were often put in an unfavorable light, such as in "Balance of Terror," with LT Styles' bigotry and "Obsession," where Kirk goes overboard due to a very human weakness. Well, I'm through pontificating. Next, please? ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | U.S. Mail: | | James D. Maloy | | | The Pennsylvania State University | James Maloy | | | 48 Atherton | | ihnp4!psuvax1!miq@psuvma.bitnet | University Park, PA 16802 | | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S'wahu?