Talk:Gaia and the Stellar Lottery

From SolSeed

Jump to: navigation, search

In the discussion after the reading of the play within the January 14th Weekly Service Call, Ben critiqued this play in two ways:

The first one that I would like to discuss is this: he felt that the play used the idea that living beings exists somewhere ethereally before they come into existence. And he felt this idea was woo.

At the time, I (EricSaumur 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)) argued that the metaphor was not perfect and Rico defended me by saying that I was using artistic license. However, I think that the metaphor actually works pretty well. Let me explain:

Gaia is a personification. She doesn't even exist in reality let alone in an ethereal brane before her existence. But what she represents is the Body of all Life and that does exist. Likewise, the 'ethereal plane' in the play is a metaphor or perhaps 'placeification' which is like a 'personification' (a metaphor that makes a person out of something that is not a person) but is a metaphor which makes a _place_ out of something which is not a place. That ethereal plane represents the possibility space of life coming into being on planets. The ethereal beings who drop dice in Gaia's cup are giving her chances at coming into existence. They represent the universe, which by its very creative nature gives life chance after chance to come into existence. The lottery tickets are a second metaphor for the same thing (hence the same agents selling the lottery tickets as giving the dice. Why two metaphors for the same thing? Well neither was perfect. The lottery tickets, being decorated, as instant win lottery tickets usually are, with symbols, can more clearly represent the nature of the chance to win than any other metaphor for chance that I could think of. They can have the stars and planets on them. But lottery tickets, by their very nature, have to be bought. And the universe gives (not sells) these chances to Gaia. Besides the pre-existent Gaia has nothing to buy them with. So I had to have the universe give her tokens to buy them with. At first I was going to have it be coins but dice nicely represented the giving of a chance.

The point was that the whole ethereal brane is a placeification of the possibility space from which Gaia came into existence. So the image of Gaia being pre-existant in that brane works. In day language, the Body of all Earthly Life can be imagined to exist in the possibility space that has as its dimensions {x,y,z} | x= [the probability of a particular planet giving rise to Life], y = [the number of planets in the universe, past, present and future], z = [the possible forms that planetary bodies of Life could take]. The brane we were looking at was simply the {x,y} plane where z = Gaia.

The second criticism is that the play might be considered child pornography. A play with that much narration is obviously meant to be read not acted on stage. The narration replaces the actions, costumes, props, back drops and stage furniture. A play that was meant to be acted out would have stage direction instead of narration. For example, instead of the narrator describing the limousine pulling over on the road, there would be a stage direction which said; Limousine pulls on from stage right and stops with the rear doors directly behind Gaia or something like that. Seeing as it is not going to be acted out, no one will ever see the child nude. There is nothing sexual about the interactions of the characters YOU and GAIA. GAIA is never explicitly described as nude. Gods and goddesses and angel-like beings are often represented in art as nude (Cherubim, Venus, et cetera). Artistic depictions of cherubim are not considered pornographic and even adorn churches. As a social naturist, I often find myself in the presence of nude children. There is nothing sexual about it. The strong link between nudity and sexuality is not part of my culture even if it is part of some parts of North American culture.

Personal tools