Discussion Question: What are some of the symbols Frank Herbert used in the
Dune Chronicles?

Tony wrote:
> Discussion Question: What are some of the symbols Frank Herbert used in the
> Dune Chronicles?


Jessica had a zither stand in her quarters, but I don't remember any
cymbals.....

WM


>
>

"Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote in message news:
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>> Discussion Question: What are some of the symbols Frank Herbert used in
>> the Dune Chronicles?
>
>
> Jessica had a zither stand in her quarters, but I don't remember any
> cymbals.....
>

Jessica knew how to play the symbols. ;-)

On Feb 18, 4:39�pm, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net> wrote in message news:
>
> > Tony wrote:
> >> Discussion Question: �What are some of the symbols Frank Herbert usedin
> >> the Dune Chronicles?

The most obvious being the overtly phallic sandworm.

> "Unfeign" <chris.mocella@gmail.com> wrote


> The most obvious being the overtly phallic sandworm.

Some claim that the worm is like a dragon guarding a treasure.

On 21 Feb, 23:23, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Unfeign" <chris.moce...@gmail.com> wrote
> > The most obvious being the overtly phallic sandworm.
>
> Some claim that the worm is like a dragon guarding a treasure.

Well there are obvious ones, spice for oil, and freemen for arabs.
Also Kwisatch Haderach is messiah.

"Darwi" <odrade.darwi@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5428b582-f7ee-4e0a-a713-2b0b97ea45d9@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Feb, 23:23, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Unfeign" <chris.moce...@gmail.com> wrote
>> > The most obvious being the overtly phallic sandworm.
>>
>> Some claim that the worm is like a dragon guarding a treasure.
>
> Well there are obvious ones, spice for oil, and freemen for arabs.
> Also Kwisatch Haderach is messiah.

Hi Darwi. :-) Let me ask you, If Paul is a messiah, does that make him a
god? [I'm trying to figure this out for the other discussion thread.]

On 28 Feb, 21:17, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Darwi" <odrade.da...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5428b582-f7ee-4e0a-a713-2b0b97ea45d9@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 21 Feb, 23:23, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > "Unfeign" <chris.moce...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> > The most obvious being the overtly phallic sandworm.
>
> >> Some claim that the worm is like a dragon guarding a treasure.
>
> > Well there are obvious ones, spice for oil, and freemen for arabs.
> > Also Kwisatch Haderach is messiah.
>
> Hi Darwi. *:-) *Let me ask you, If Paul is a messiah, does that make him a
> god? *[I'm trying to figure this out for the other discussion thread.]


Let me quote wikipedia:
"Messiah (Hebrew: מָׁשִיַח, StandardMašíaḥ Tiberian Māšîªḥ; Aramaic:
משיחא, Aramaic/Syriac: ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ, Məšîḥā; Arabic: المسيح‎, al-Masīḥ)
Literally, Messiah means "The Anointed (One)", typically someone
anointed with holy anointing oil. Figuratively, anointing is done to
signify being chosen for a task; so, Messiah means "The Chosen (One)",
particularly someone divinely chosen.
In Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, Messiah refers to a
future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who will be and rule the
Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Standard Hebrew, The
Messiah is often referred to as מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ (in the
Tiberian vocalization pronounced Méleḵ hamMāšîªḥ), literally meaning
"the Anointed King." "

The problem with the 'god' notion comes from Christianity, since Jesus
is considered to be a God and a Messiah. But that part can easily be
disregarded by the fact that Paul has human father. I do not believe
that F. Herbert would be interested so much to describe the messiah as
much as effect that cult of messiah has on human societies.
Therefore I can conclude that Paul is not a god.

> Hi Darwi. :-) Let me ask you, If Paul is a messiah, does that make him a
> god? [I'm trying to figure this out for the other discussion thread.]

Darwi wrote:

[Let me quote wikipedia:
"Messiah (Hebrew: ????????, Standard Mas�a? Tiberian Mas�?; Aramaic:
?????, Aramaic/Syriac: ???????, M?s�?a; Arabic: ???????, al-Masi?)
Literally, Messiah means "The Anointed (One)", typically someone
anointed with holy anointing oil. Figuratively, anointing is done to
signify being chosen for a task; so, Messiah means "The Chosen (One)",
particularly someone divinely chosen.
In Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, Messiah refers to a
future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who will be and rule the
Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Standard Hebrew, The
Messiah is often referred to as ??? ?????, M�le? ha-Mas�a? (in the
Tiberian vocalization pronounced M�le? hamMas�?), literally meaning
"the Anointed King." "

The problem with the 'god' notion comes from Christianity, since Jesus
is considered to be a God and a Messiah. But that part can easily be
disregarded by the fact that Paul has human father. I do not believe
that F. Herbert would be interested so much to describe the messiah as
much as effect that cult of messiah has on human societies.
Therefore I can conclude that Paul is not a god."]

Tony replied:

Thank you for this information. If I understand this issue correctly, if
one ascribes to the Jewish definition of Messiah, one someone be the
Messiah, and be merely "a king" and not God. And you're probably correct in
describing Frank Herbert's intentions with respect to Paul. However, for
the purposes of the discussion thread below ("Gods of Dune") I'm interested
in identifying all the various gods identified in the Dune Chronicles.
According to this perspective, we should note that Paul was considered to be
a god. For example, in Dune Messiah Paul declares in reference to himself:

"When godhead is given, that's the one thing the so-called god no longer
controls."

"Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tuednaV9C_oTkVHanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
|> Hi Darwi. :-) Let me ask you, If Paul is a messiah, does that make him a
| > god? [I'm trying to figure this out for the other discussion thread.]
|
| Darwi wrote:
|
| [Let me quote wikipedia:
| "Messiah (Hebrew: ????????, Standard Mas�a? Tiberian Mas�?; Aramaic:
| ?????, Aramaic/Syriac: ???????, M?s�?a; Arabic: ???????, al-Masi?)
| Literally, Messiah means "The Anointed (One)", typically someone
| anointed with holy anointing oil. Figuratively, anointing is done to
| signify being chosen for a task; so, Messiah means "The Chosen (One)",
| particularly someone divinely chosen.
| In Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, Messiah refers to a
| future Jewish King from the Davidic line, who will be and rule the
| Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Standard Hebrew, The
| Messiah is often referred to as ??? ?????, M�le? ha-Mas�a? (in the
| Tiberian vocalization pronounced M�le? hamMas�?), literally meaning
| "the Anointed King." "
|
| The problem with the 'god' notion comes from Christianity, since Jesus
| is considered to be a God and a Messiah. But that part can easily be
| disregarded by the fact that Paul has human father. I do not believe
| that F. Herbert would be interested so much to describe the messiah as
| much as effect that cult of messiah has on human societies.
| Therefore I can conclude that Paul is not a god."]
|
| Tony replied:
|
| Thank you for this information. If I understand this issue correctly, if
| one ascribes to the Jewish definition of Messiah, *someone may* be the
| Messiah, and be merely "a king" and not God. And you're probably correct
in
| describing Frank Herbert's intentions with respect to Paul. However, for
| the purposes of the discussion thread below ("Gods of Dune") I'm
interested
| in identifying all the various gods identified in the Dune Chronicles.
| According to this perspective, we should note that Paul was considered to
be
| a god. For example, in Dune Messiah Paul declares in reference to
himself:
|
| "When godhead is given, that's the one thing the so-called god no longer
| controls."
|
|

PS I meant to say "someone may be the Messiah, and be merely "a king" and
not God. (above)

The only new books I read were 3 prequels, therefore I can not say
anything about religion intentions of the 2 new writers of Dune.
But for your discussion, especially if it is involving the F. Herbert
work I think that first and foremost is important to define term
'GOD'. Todays definition of the major monotheistic religions implies
that the 'GOD' is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omnibenevolent. Neither of those qualities was attributed to any of
the DUNE characters. In polytheism you have a bit 'lesser' gods, which
abilities are limited, and duties are limited. If you apply that
definition than you can declare some character gods, in the same way
ancient Roman emperors were declaring themselves gods. So in the
polytheistic sense Paul can be a god.

My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
have interesting and tense story with omniscient, omnipotent,
omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character. with such character as
supporting character you can have a story (remember Q from Star Trek),
but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way. But
if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
(polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
not made him the God. It just made interesting point of how people can
be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
polytheistic sense.


> Tony replied:
>
> Thank you for this information. �If I understand this issue correctly, if
> one ascribes to the Jewish definition of Messiah, one someone be the
> Messiah, and be merely "a king" and not God. �And you're probably correct in
> describing Frank Herbert's intentions with respect to Paul. �However, for
> the purposes of the discussion thread below ("Gods of Dune") I'm interested
> in identifying all the various gods identified in the Dune Chronicles.
> According to this perspective, we should note that Paul was considered to be
> a god. �For example, in Dune Messiah Paul declares in reference to himself:
>
> "When godhead is given, that's the one thing the so-called god no longer
> controls."

Darwi wrote:
> The only new books I read were 3 prequels, therefore I can not say
> anything about religion intentions of the 2 new writers of Dune.
> But for your discussion, especially if it is involving the F. Herbert
> work I think that first and foremost is important to define term
> 'GOD'. Todays definition of the major monotheistic religions implies
> that the 'GOD' is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
> omnibenevolent. Neither of those qualities was attributed to any of
> the DUNE characters. In polytheism you have a bit 'lesser' gods, which
> abilities are limited, and duties are limited. If you apply that
> definition than you can declare some character gods, in the same way
> ancient Roman emperors were declaring themselves gods. So in the
> polytheistic sense Paul can be a god.
>
> My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
> monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
> have interesting and tense story with omniscient, omnipotent,
> omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.

Well, there were people who believed in what you are calling "The God"
in Dune ref. the Orange Catholic Bible, but it was not a main component.
I also believe that FH was likely, like his Bene Gesserit, essentially
atheist or agnostic, although I really have nothing to back that up. I
feel he didn't include that character as it would be like having the
Easter Bunny as a B.G. Acolyte. Although FH doesn't include the
traditional "Guiding/Creating" God, he does reference a "higher plan"
and the sense that there might be something, other than the described
characters/groups guiding or influencing things.

with such character as
> supporting character you can have a story (remember Q from Star Trek),
> but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way. But
> if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
> did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
> stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
> remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
> (polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
> her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
> Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
> the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
> not made him the God.

I think this is what makes GEoD such an interesting read. We, the
reader, are in on Leto II's "true" nature, even as we watch the reaction
to his "Godhood" in those around him, especially Nayla and Moneo, who
should have know better.

It just made interesting point of how people can
> be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
> people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
> them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
> polytheistic sense.

Indeed, there are still people who believe in the Christian God, even
given the improbable stories and effects laid down the the Bible. Not to
mention all the other improbable offshoots or original
gods/demons/controllers/creators, most who seem to have been
active/visible in earlier times, but who, for now, seem to be happy to
be invisible.

WM
>
>

"Darwi" <odrade.darwi@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:

The only new books I read were 3 prequels, therefore I can not say
anything about religion intentions of the 2 new writers of Dune.
But for your discussion, especially if it is involving the F. Herbert
work I think that first and foremost is important to define term
'GOD'. Todays definition of the major monotheistic religions implies
that the 'GOD' is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omnibenevolent. Neither of those qualities was attributed to any of
the DUNE characters.

T: Hi Darwi. For the purposes of the discussion thread below my definition
is broader. A "god" would be any being considered to be a god by a large
segment of the population. After all, people have different ideas about
gods, so it's difficult to have an "objective" definition.

In polytheism you have a bit 'lesser' gods, which
abilities are limited, and duties are limited. If you apply that
definition than you can declare some character gods, in the same way
ancient Roman emperors were declaring themselves gods. So in the
polytheistic sense Paul can be a god.

T: Okay we're in agreement here.

My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
have interesting and tense story with omniscient, omnipotent,
omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.
with such character as supporting character you can have a story (remember Q
from Star Trek),
but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way.

T: Sure FH didn't want a Q type character in the Chronicles, but "god" is
mentioned throughout his saga. Remember the "god of machine logic," "the
language of god," and "god will lead you to a place to die."

But
if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
(polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
not made him the God.

T: Perhaps it did. It depends on your definition. For example, Jean Luc
Picard didn't consider Q a god, but Q claimed to be the god Prometheus in
one story (IQ). In that case the Greeks presumably considered Q a god.

It just made interesting point of how people can
be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
polytheistic sense.

T: It's ironic that FH included so many lesser gods in his Dune Chronicles.
I don't think he was implying, "look at all those dopey people believing in
that stuff." I think he believed that religious thinking was part of being
human.

Tony wrote:
>
> T: It's ironic that FH included so many lesser gods in his Dune Chronicles.
> I don't think he was implying, "look at all those dopey people believing in
> that stuff." I think he believed that religious thinking was part of being
> human.

While I agree that he wrote of it because it is intertwined with human
affairs, I believe that FH was more of an anti religion bent, than a pro
one. He seemed to show a disdain of belief if you use the belief
systems, or lack thereof, of his main protagonists, especially in HoD &
GEoD.

WM

>
>
>
>

>
> > My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
> > monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
> > have interesting and tense story with �omniscient, omnipotent,
> > omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.
>
> � � � � Well, there were people who believed in what you are calling "The God"
> in Dune ref. the Orange Catholic Bible, but it was not a main component.
> I also believe that FH was likely, like his Bene Gesserit, essentially
> atheist or agnostic, although I really have nothing to back that up. I
> feel he didn't include that character as it would be like having the
> Easter Bunny as a B.G. Acolyte. Although FH doesn't include the
> traditional "Guiding/Creating" God, he does reference a "higher plan"
> and the sense that there might be something, other than the described
> characters/groups guiding or influencing things.

Yeah, and he mentioned that "higher plan" because it fits the story.

>
> � with such character as
>
> > supporting character you can have a story (remember Q from Star Trek),
> > but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way. But
> > if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
> > did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
> > stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
> > remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
> > (polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
> > her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
> > Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
> > the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
> > not made him the God.
>
> � � � � I think this is what makes GEoD such an interesting read. We, the
> reader, are in on Leto II's "true" nature, even as we watch the reaction
> to his "Godhood" in those around him, especially Nayla and Moneo, who
> should have know better.

Of course it does. F. Herbert is, to my knowledge, only SF author who
applies so much knowledge about human psychology into his characters.
For me that really makes all his work more interesting.

>
> > be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
> > people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
> > them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
> > polytheistic sense.
>
> � � � � Indeed, there are still people who believe in the Christian God, even
> given the improbable stories and effects laid down the the Bible. Not to
> mention all the other improbable offshoots or original
> gods/demons/controllers/creators, most who seem to have been
> active/visible in earlier times, but who, for now, seem to be happy to
> be invisible.

Ok, I got it. You're not Christian.

The faith in something which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omnibenevolent can be and will be argued and contra-argued as long as
we human exist, as long as we exist way we exist now. Just I wished
to made point that believing that a computer is a god, Elvis Presley
is a god, or similar person or object is only acceptable to be
mentioned as a joke, in my opinion, simply because it can be proved
that they are not.

But it is the fact that you have a humans who are ready to believe
that. And their believe is not in any way less or insignificant. It is
in the way the exactly the same sentiment the hard core Atheists,
Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, etc. have.( I mentioned atheists as
well because the believe that the God does not exist is believe
itself. There is no scientific prove for or against. So atheists are
believers too.)

and that's why F. Herbert introduced that into his books. to describe
that religious feeling and what people are ready to do because of it.

>
> WM
>
>

> T: �Hi Darwi. �For the purposes of the discussion thread below my definition
> is broader. �A "god" would be any being considered to be a god by a large
> segment of the population. �After all, people have different ideas about
> gods, so it's difficult to have an "objective" definition.
>

Yep. That's true. That's one of those points where only 'mine' opinion
is 'the right one'. That's how we ended up with all those religious
wars.
That's why I quoted the wikipedia definition. Since that's open source
I can assume that majority of the human population is in agreement
with that definition.

> In polytheism you have a bit 'lesser' gods, which
> abilities are limited, and duties are limited. If you apply that
> definition than you can declare some character gods, in the same way
> ancient Roman emperors were declaring themselves gods. So in the
> polytheistic sense Paul can be a god.
>
> T: �Okay we're in agreement here.

Ah. In that case, a god is just a term used to illustrate certain
human behavior.

>
> My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
> monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
> have interesting and tense story with �omniscient, omnipotent,
> omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.
> with such character as supporting character you can have a story (rememberQ
> from Star Trek),
> but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way.
>
> T: �Sure FH didn't want a Q type character in the Chronicles, but "god" is
> mentioned throughout his saga. �Remember the "god of machine logic," "the
> language of god," and "god will lead you to a place to die."

Yep. Those are mentioned. And it was illustrated how those terms can
be used to manipulate the population. Majority of the humans has wired
in their brain to consider term GOD to signify something better than
themselves, something on what they can not have any influence. So
isn't so tempting to say: "We have to go to the neighborhood village
and destroy it, because that's the God wish!"

>
> But
> if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
> did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
> stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
> remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
> (polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
> her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
> Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
> the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
> not made him the God.
>
> T: �Perhaps it did. �It depends on your definition. �For example, Jean Luc
> Picard didn't consider Q a god, but Q claimed to be the god Prometheus in
> one story (IQ). �In that case the Greeks presumably considered Q a god.

Prometheus is not a god, he's a Titan. Just small correction.
But I see your point. It is basically important that in certain people
he did provoke religious feelings.

Those feelings were part of the story in the first place.

>
> It just made interesting point of how people can
> be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
> people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
> them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
> polytheistic sense.
>
> T: �It's ironic that FH included so many lesser gods in his Dune Chronicles.
> I don't think he was implying, "look at all those dopey people believing in
> that stuff." �I think he believed that religious thinking was part of being
> human.

What FH thought, we can not know.
But I agree that religion is part of being human. For me, FH shows in
his work how that part can be easily be used for the manipulations.

Darwi wrote:
>>>My opinion is that F. Herbert did not wished to include the
>>>monotheistic God (the God) in his writing simply because one can not
>>>have interesting and tense story with omniscient, omnipotent,
>>>omnipresent, omnibenevolent main character.
>>
>> Well, there were people who believed in what you are calling "The God"
>>in Dune ref. the Orange Catholic Bible, but it was not a main component.
>>I also believe that FH was likely, like his Bene Gesserit, essentially
>>atheist or agnostic, although I really have nothing to back that up. I
>>feel he didn't include that character as it would be like having the
>>Easter Bunny as a B.G. Acolyte. Although FH doesn't include the
>>traditional "Guiding/Creating" God, he does reference a "higher plan"
>>and the sense that there might be something, other than the described
>>characters/groups guiding or influencing things.
>
>
> Yeah, and he mentioned that "higher plan" because it fits the story.
>
>
>> with such character as
>>
>>
>>>supporting character you can have a story (remember Q from Star Trek),
>>>but not as main character. Unless you limit him/her in some way. But
>>>if you do limit the God than it is not the God anymore. So F. Herbert
>>>did gave different views about the God and the religion in his
>>>stories, because he was describing the human nature. I clearly
>>>remember that Chani never thought that Paul was the God nor a god
>>>(polytheistic one). She knew he has some strange qualities, but for
>>>her he never was a or the god. Same was with Leto II, not a single
>>>Bene Gesserit reverent mother considered him a god and definitely not
>>>the God. On the other hand, Fish Speakers did. But their opinion did
>>>not made him the God.
>>
>> I think this is what makes GEoD such an interesting read. We, the
>>reader, are in on Leto II's "true" nature, even as we watch the reaction
>>to his "Godhood" in those around him, especially Nayla and Moneo, who
>>should have know better.
>
>
> Of course it does. F. Herbert is, to my knowledge, only SF author who
> applies so much knowledge about human psychology into his characters.
> For me that really makes all his work more interesting.
>
>
>>>be forced to believe strangest things. After all, even today you have
>>>people which believe that computer or Elvis is god. But every one of
>>>them, including a computer or Elvis can be declared gods in
>>>polytheistic sense.
>>
>> Indeed, there are still people who believe in the Christian God, even
>>given the improbable stories and effects laid down the the Bible. Not to
>>mention all the other improbable offshoots or original
>>gods/demons/controllers/creators, most who seem to have been
>>active/visible in earlier times, but who, for now, seem to be happy to
>>be invisible.
>
>
> Ok, I got it. You're not Christian.

I never said that.

WM

>
> The faith in something which is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
> omnibenevolent can be and will be argued and contra-argued as long as
> we human exist, as long as we exist way we exist now. Just I wished
> to made point that believing that a computer is a god, Elvis Presley
> is a god, or similar person or object is only acceptable to be
> mentioned as a joke, in my opinion, simply because it can be proved
> that they are not.
>
> But it is the fact that you have a humans who are ready to believe
> that. And their believe is not in any way less or insignificant. It is
> in the way the exactly the same sentiment the hard core Atheists,
> Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, etc. have.( I mentioned atheists as
> well because the believe that the God does not exist is believe
> itself. There is no scientific prove for or against. So atheists are
> believers too.)
>
> and that's why F. Herbert introduced that into his books. to describe
> that religious feeling and what people are ready to do because of it.
>
>
>>WM
>>
>>
>
>

Wild Monkshood wrote:

>
>
> Darwi wrote:
>

>>
>> Ok, I got it. You're not Christian.
>
>
> I never said that.

Let me elaborate. I do try to respect others beliefs, but this is a
discussion group. If you are going to discuss something, that is
difficult if you have to defer reality in order to try not to offend
someone. I will not get into a protracted debate about various
religious beliefs and their merits, nor will I pretend that belief in a
sky god is viable.

WM

>
> WM
>
>>

"Darwi" <odrade.darwi@googlemail.com> wrote

<snip>

What FH thought, we can not know.
But I agree that religion is part of being human. For me, FH shows in
his work how that part can be easily be used for the manipulations.

T: You and Wild Monkshood raise some excellent points. I don't think our
positions are that far apart. But let me ask you, When you say the Kwisatz
Haderach symbolizes a messiah, in what sense are you using the term messiah?
Are you saying Paul was a religious king, in the Jewish sense of the term
messiah?

"Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote

<snip>

> While I agree that he wrote of it because it is intertwined with human
> affairs, I believe that FH was more of an anti religion bent, than a pro
> one. He seemed to show a disdain of belief if you use the belief systems,
> or lack thereof, of his main protagonists, especially in HoD & GEoD.
>

I was probably exaggerating the facts of the matter in my previous post.
But for the sake of argument, What protagonists do you feel exemplified a
distain for religion? I'm not sure if I agree with that idea yet. Religion
is a pretty broad term that encompasses Zen, yoga, etc.

Tony wrote:
> "Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
>>While I agree that he wrote of it because it is intertwined with human
>>affairs, I believe that FH was more of an anti religion bent, than a pro
>>one. He seemed to show a disdain of belief if you use the belief systems,
>>or lack thereof, of his main protagonists, especially in HoD & GEoD.
>>
>
>
> I was probably exaggerating the facts of the matter in my previous post.
> But for the sake of argument, What protagonists do you feel exemplified a
> distain for religion? I'm not sure if I agree with that idea yet. Religion
> is a pretty broad term that encompasses Zen, yoga, etc.

Any BG and their trusted retainers, such as Miles Teg.

>
>

On 5 Mar, 17:19, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
> > Darwi wrote:
>
> >> Ok, I got it. You're not Christian.
>
> > � � I never said that.
>
> � � � � Let me elaborate. I do try to respect others beliefs, but this is a
> discussion group. If you are going to discuss something, that is
> difficult if you have to defer reality in order to try not to offend
> someone. �I will not get into a protracted debate about various
> religious beliefs and their merits, nor will I pretend that belief in a
> sky god is viable.
>
> WM
>
>
>
> > WM

Apparently I hit the nerve.

Your text: "
> Indeed, there are still people who believe in the Christian God, even
>given the improbable stories and effects laid down the the Bible. Not to
>mention all the other improbable offshoots or original
>gods/demons/controllers/creators, most who seem to have been
>active/visible in earlier times, but who, for now, seem to be happy to
>be invisible.

" gave me impression that you're strongly emotionally against basic
Christian believes.
I personally do not give a **** what you believe. It's your life.
Your reaction told me that you're so emotionally involved in this
thing that you were not capable even to read the rest of the message.

And you are right, when emotions are high it is impossible to have
reasonable discussion.

On 5 Mar, 22:01, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Darwi" <odrade.da...@googlemail.com> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> What FH thought, we can not know.
> But I agree that religion is part of being human. For me, FH shows in
> his work how that part can be easily be used for the manipulations.
>
> T: �You and Wild Monkshood raise some excellent points. �I don't thinkour
> positions are that far apart. �But let me ask you, �When you say the Kwisatz
> Haderach symbolizes a messiah, in what sense are you using the term messiah?
> Are you saying Paul was a religious king, in the Jewish sense of the term
> messiah?

Well, I'm using term messiah simply because FH himself used that term
to describe him. Remember that scene when Paul first drive trough
Arakeen? People shout that he's messiah.
If you ask me to choose meaning of the word messiah which would, in my
opinion be best fitted to Paul, then I've got to go with 'the chosen
one' a person chosen to do certain task. For me Paul is human,
extraordinary one due to his education and breeding, but nevertheless
human. Perfectly fitted for the task in FH put in front of him, indeed
a 'chosen one.' I can not go with the Jewish sense of the term simply
because that meaning implies Hebrew background to the story, and there
is none. The complete story is a comment on todays people, and on
situation which was existing in 20th century earth as FH saw it. I do
admire the complexities of the details in which FH went to describe a
human nature.
Now I'll try to explain to you how I see all of that. I'll try to make
it as clear as I can.

Paul himself suppose to be a product of a centuries of breeding and
he has characteristics we can not even imagine how is to have. A
personal history of one human is what makes it the way he/she is. All
those little silly things every one of us went trough the childhood.
many of those memories are suppressed because they were too painful.
It is indeed very hard trying to imagine how would everyday life
looked like if you were able to access not only every single of your
own memories, but also memories of many of your ancestors. Just that
would make completely different person. On top of that FH gave him
possibility to see the future.
All of that sounds scary and impossible to imagine, really imagine.
That's why Paul seems so extraordinary. And he is, from our point of
view. But you see, Paul was surrounded with other creatures, his
mother, his sister, whole Bene Gesserit, later his children and
Ghanima offspring's, who had similar characteristics. He was not
extraordinary, he was just a bit better than the rest. FH contributed
all that to the special DNA characteristic which came to blossom in
Leto III. When you go along that story, then until death of Leto III
you had that 'special' DNA spread trough the human race. Mostly
dormant, as even now most of our genes are dormant, but existing.
Because of that story development I can not declare Paul supernatural.
He was just a bloke who had certain positive genetic mutation that
spread trough species. The same thing already happened in human
history when we got the brains we have today.

On 6 Mar, 01:07, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > "Wild Monkshood" <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net> wrote
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>While I agree that he wrote of it because it is intertwined with human
> >>affairs, I believe that FH was more of an anti religion bent, than a pro
> >>one. He seemed to show a disdain of belief if you use the belief systems,
> >>or lack thereof, of his main protagonists, especially in HoD & GEoD.
>
> > I was probably exaggerating the facts of the matter in my previous post.
> > But for the sake of argument, What protagonists do you feel exemplified a
> > distain for religion? �I'm not sure if I agree with that idea yet. �Religion
> > is a pretty broad term that encompasses Zen, yoga, etc.
>
> � � � � Any BG and their trusted retainers, such as Miles Teg.
>
>

I agree with this. BG used religion for the manipulation. Leto III as
well. On the other hand Leto did show the respect to the strength of
the believing. BG did not.

Darwi wrote:
> I personally do not give a **** what you believe.


Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
goodbye, Darwi....

WM

Goodbye!

And since I'm nice girl I'll also wish you a nice day!

On 6 Mar, 14:58, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Darwi wrote:
> > I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>
> � � � � Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
> goodbye, Darwi....
>
> WM

On Mar 6, 6:58�am, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net>
wrote:
> Darwi wrote:
> > I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>
> � � � � Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
> goodbye, Darwi....
>
> WM

?? am I missing something? Gotta quit drinkin tang...

Dan Cline

"Darwi" <odrade.darwi@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:

<snip>

D: Well, I'm using term messiah simply because FH himself used that term
to describe him. Remember that scene when Paul first drive trough
Arakeen? People shout that he's messiah.

T: Yes, but if you say that the Kwisatz Haderach "symbolized" a messiah,
that could mean that the novel Dune constituted a kind of allegory for real
historical events. In other words, FH might have meant for Paul to be a
kind of Christ figure, or perhaps someone "who will usher in the messianic
age of war before peace to the world," as in the orthodox Jewish belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

D: If you ask me to choose meaning of the word messiah which would, in my
opinion be best fitted to Paul, then I've got to go with 'the chosen
one' a person chosen to do certain task. For me Paul is human,
extraordinary one due to his education and breeding, but nevertheless
human. Perfectly fitted for the task in FH put in front of him, indeed
a 'chosen one.'

T: I don't think "chosen one" can mean chosen by the author of the story to
perform tasks to advance the plot (if that's what you mean). If Paul was
the "chosen one," I think it's fair to ask, Chosen by whom or what? He
wasn't chosen by the Bene Gesserit. He was chosen by the Freman, but the
Freman believed he was chosen by God. Consequently, I don't believe Paul
was a true "chosen one" unless one claims he was chosen by the Higher Order
Plan as discussed in the Appendix.

D: I can not go with the Jewish sense of the term simply
because that meaning implies Hebrew background to the story, and there
is none.

T: That's fine of course, and that's your preference. However, Paul could
still be a religious king, but not subscribe to Jewish traditions. For
example, wasn't Islam's Muhammad a kind of religious king?

D: The complete story is a comment on todays people, and on
situation which was existing in 20th century earth as FH saw it.

T: Fair enough, but if so, what specific situations was FH commenting on?
Did Paul represent a type of Kennedy figure? Or was he instead a type of
Lawrence of Arabia? Did he represent Stalin or Hitler?

D: I do admire the complexities of the details in which FH went to describe
a
human nature. Now I'll try to explain to you how I see all of that. I'll try
to make
it as clear as I can.

Paul himself was supposed to be a product of a centuries of breeding and
he has characteristics we can not even imagine how is to have. A
personal history of one human is what makes it the way he/she is. All
those little silly things every one of us went through the childhood.
many of those memories are suppressed because they were too painful.
It is indeed very hard trying to imagine how would everyday life
looked like if you were able to access not only every single of your
own memories, but also memories of many of your ancestors.

T: I imagine you would have to be very strong mentally to remember all your
painful memories. However, I think that most people can do this
intermittently. In other words, people have access to all their memories,
but not all their memories simultaneously. It would be difficult to retain
multiple lifetimes of memories.

D: Just that would make completely different person. On top of that FH gave
him
possibility to see the future.

T: Yes, but I think that Paul's greatest ability, was the ability to see
the Now. This was noted in the novel.

D: All of that sounds scary and impossible to imagine, really imagine.
That's why Paul seems so extraordinary. And he is, from our point of
view. But you see, Paul was surrounded with other creatures, his
mother, his sister, whole Bene Gesserit, later his children and
Ghanima offspring's, who had similar characteristics. He was not
extraordinary, he was just a bit better than the rest. FH contributed
all that to the special DNA characteristic which came to blossom in
Leto III.

T: Yes, I know what you mean, but even though Paul's first son died, his
second sone was called Leto II.

D: When you go along that story, then until death of Leto III
you had that 'special' DNA spread trough the human race. Mostly
dormant, as even now most of our genes are dormant, but existing.

T: I not sure why you say the DNA was dormant. As I recall, the Mark of
Siona was active in all of Siona's descendents.

D: Because of that story development I can not declare Paul supernatural.
He was just a bloke who had certain positive genetic mutation that
spread trough species. The same thing already happened in human
history when we got the brains we have today.

T: I'd agree that Paul did not have magic powers. However, Jessica
demonstrated psychokinesis when she changed the water of life. And Paul was
unique, and represented a significant evolutionary advance for the human
species. One way to think about evolution, is to define it as man's journey
to a more god-like state of existence. This is a science fiction idea, but,
of course, Dune is a science fiction novel. It seems relevant here to note
that many people believed that Frank Herbert was attempting to start a
religion. He denied this. In the end, it was the science fiction author L.
Ron Hubbard who actually started a religion. Frank Herbert simply wrote a
story that people would enjoy, think about, and talk about.

Dan Cline wrote:
> On Mar 6, 6:58 am, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Darwi wrote:
>>
>>>I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>>
>> Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
>>goodbye, Darwi....
>>
>>WM
>
>
> ?? am I missing something? Gotta quit drinkin tang...

I can tolerate uncivil conversation in other groups, not here. You can
disagree without being profane. Otherwise the poster seems like a good
person to discuss with. If I made the statement to someone else that was
made to me, I would give myself a time-out. So I am blocking there posts
for approximately 2 weeks. Maybe that's not their style, but an
aberration. I'll know shortly....

WM

>
> Dan Cline

On 7 Mar, 23:23, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> T: �Yes, but if you say that the Kwisatz Haderach "symbolized" a messiah,
> that could mean that the novel Dune constituted a kind of allegory for real
> historical events. �In other words, FH might have meant for Paul to be a
> kind of Christ figure, or perhaps someone "who will usher in the messianic
> age of war before peace to the world," as in the orthodox Jewish belief.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

Not really. If you take something like symbol that does not mean that
you had to copy the whole history as well. Symbol for high amperage is
stylized lightning but that does not mean that you have to declare
every single person working with the electricity as B. Franklin just
because B.F. tried to catch a lighting.

In my opinion Paul should represent this silly difference between
reality (him being just human) and how religious people saw him as
deity. It's more to illustrate how blind people can be. And not to
draw any historical references.
In fact, if there would be any reference with the historic religious
cultures, I would take an Islam as the main model, since Fremens are
modeled on Islam, therefore Paul can not be Christ, it's more likely
that he's representation of Mohammed.


>
> T: �I don't think "chosen one" can mean chosen by the author of the story to
> perform tasks to advance the plot (if that's what you mean). �If Paul was

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Dune is just a story written by a
human. Just story. All symbolism used is consequence of F. Herbert
interpretation and his point of view. Nothing else. The only thing we
can discus is what he was thinking, or what we are thinking after
reading the story.


> the "chosen one," I think it's fair to ask, Chosen by whom or what? �He
> wasn't chosen by the Bene Gesserit. �He was chosen by the Freman, but the
> Freman believed he was chosen by God. �Consequently, I don't believe Paul
> was a true "chosen one" unless one claims he was chosen by the Higher Order
> Plan as discussed in the Appendix.

For Fremens he was. True "chosen one" and that was necessary for the
story. Of course, BG did not choose him. F.Herbert, also got a bit
mystical about that putting this "Higher Order Plan" and also
explaining it as some weird way of future influencing the past. The
catch is that if you let any kind of gods into a story you'll have a
fantasy story not a SF story. And Dune is still officially categorized
as SF. It's quite sly how F.H. left that part not explained in detail.
So you can start wonder are "gods" have more role in the story or they
are just there as an interpretation of todays religion influences .
Exactly as you can wonder does any God has influence in our life or
that's all just consequence of our believes and psychology.


>
> T: �That's fine of course, and that's your preference. �However, Paul could
> still be a religious king, but not subscribe to Jewish traditions. �For
> example, wasn't Islam's Muhammad a kind of religious king?

No. Mohammed was prophet. The last true one. That's official religious
interpretation. From historical point of view, he was someone who
unified Arabic tribes and with that increased their strength enough
that they started to be important for the history. So if you really
wish to compare Paul with some religious figure, than Mohammed would
be correct pick. Not Jesus.

>
> D: �The complete �story is a comment on todays people, and on
> situation which was existing in 20th century earth as FH saw it.
>
> T: �Fair enough, but if so, what specific situations was FH commenting on?
> Did Paul represent a type of Kennedy figure? �Or was he instead a type of
> Lawrence of Arabia? �Did he represent Stalin or Hitler?

Why you're so obsessed with history details?

In my opinion FH was commenting on the situation with the oil. Spice
is symbol for an oil. Fremens = Arabs.
But that does not mean that FH had to pick Kennedy, Lawrence, Stalin
or Hitler as role-model for Paul. That would be too constraining. Even
I would not do so, nor I would read story with those characters.
Those people are now degraded into stereotypes. They lost human
dimension. You can not use them as role-model for the complex story.
The ideas they represent in our minds now are too simple, so you can
use them only in very simple stories.
Although I did said that one could pick Mohammed as role-model for
Paul, even that is not true. I do not believe that FH did that either.
Even that is constraining for the kind of story FH wrote.


> those little silly things every one of us went through the childhood.
> many of those memories are suppressed because they were too painful.
> It is indeed very hard trying to imagine how would everyday life
> looked like if you were able to access not only every single of your
> own memories, but also memories of many of your ancestors.
>
> T: �I imagine you would have to be very strong mentally to remember all your
> painful memories. �However, I think that most people can do this
> intermittently. �In other words, people have access to all their memories,
> but not all their memories simultaneously. �It would be difficult to retain
> multiple lifetimes of memories.

Talk with a psychologist from your surroundings. Your past experiences
do model you the way you are now. And suppression is typical for at
least 75% of the human population. It's normal. Memories are
suppressed or distorted to fit certain emotional need.
If you remove the suppression you significantly changing the
personality of the individual.
About difficulty to retain memories, well for us as we are today, it's
impossible. But FH made it possible in his story. He explained with
intense training. He even showed what happens when you awoken those
memories with out a training. (Scene when Jessica changing the water
of life). That fits human nature as it is today. You would need
intense training to be able to retain all evidences of past events as
they really happened in your own past.

>
> D: �Just that would make completely different person. On top of that FH gave
> him
> possibility to see the future.
>
> T: �Yes, but I think that Paul's greatest ability, was the ability to see
> the Now. �This was noted in the novel.

Nah. That was just what Paul himself was saying. If you take that as
greatest and significant ability than every accomplished Buddhistic
monk is Kwizac Haderach. Remember, the book was written and first
published during the "Flower-power period", there has to be some
"rubbing off".

>
> D: �All of that sounds scary and impossible to imagine, really imagine.
> That's why Paul seems so extraordinary. And he is, from our point of
> view. But you see, Paul was surrounded with other creatures, his
> mother, his sister, whole Bene Gesserit, later his children and
> Ghanima offspring's, who had similar characteristics. He was not
> extraordinary, he was just a bit better than the rest. FH contributed
> all that to the special DNA characteristic which came to blossom in
> Leto III.
>
> T: �Yes, I know what you mean, but even though Paul's first son died, his
> second sone was called Leto II.

I know, but God emperor was the third Leto in the story!

>
> D: �When you go along that story, then until death of Leto III
> you had that 'special' DNA spread trough the human race. Mostly
> dormant, as even now most of our genes are dormant, but existing.
>
> T: �I not sure why you say the DNA was dormant. �As I recall, the Markof
> Siona was active in all of Siona's descendents.

Mark of Siona was not the gene I was referring too. I was talking
about the genes which make possible for majority of people to achieve
the things Paul did, not mark of Siona. Mark of siona was something
which started to spread trough human species after God emperor died.

This is in the field of microbiology. We all have a genes, the most
simple example is genes which makes you resist certain kind of
parasite. You got that gene because your ancestors were resistant on
that parasite and they survived to breed. But that parasite is not
existing in your nice clean 21'th century environment. The gene is
dormant. If you get exposed to the parasite your gene will flare up
and activate releasing appropriate instruction for antibodies. (if you
still have a gene)

So analogy would be that near the end of the God Emperor life, the
genes which made Paul special were now spread trough the human
species. Not mark of Siona. That happened later, I do assume that you
read the books, so there is no point to say when.


> T: �I'd agree that Paul did not have magic powers. �However, Jessica
> demonstrated psychokinesis when she changed the water of life. �And Paulwas

Yep, I told you, "the Flower-power" It has to rub off. Also
psychokinesis, telepathy and similar things are somehow accepted in SF
world as something which might happened due to "natural evolution" of
the species. Although there is no scientific prove for those abilities
today, there is also no prove against, so the matter is still open.
Therefore those abilities are not considered to be a magical.

> unique, and represented a significant evolutionary advance for the human
> species. �One way to think about evolution, is to define it as man's journey
> to a more god-like state of existence. �This is a science fiction idea, but,

Why? What's the point of god-like state of existence? Evolution is
adaptation to a environment, nothing more. Breeding is something which
is used to achieve certain goals, like remove tendency to floppy ears
in certain dog breed. Paul was product of breeding, not evolution.

> of course, Dune is a science fiction novel. �It seems relevant here to note
> that many people believed that Frank Herbert was attempting to start a
> religion. �He denied this. �In the end, it was the science fiction author L.
> Ron Hubbard who actually started a religion. �Frank Herbert simply wrotea
> story that people would enjoy, think about, and talk about.

Well, honestly, Dune is much more complex and interesting story than
"The battlefield Earth". And look at your own posting. You're etching
towards attributing religious meaning to a story all the time. And
you're not the only one. It is no wonder than people thought FH trying
to start religion. People still find religion in his books.
Hubbard's work on the other hand is simple and to me fall into
category of the "airport reading" (i.e. when you're bored to death by
plane delays and security checks that you'll read anything). No wander
he started religion. He needed someone to take him seriously. ;-)

On 7 Mar, 23:03, Dan Cline <paul_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 6:58�am, Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monksh...@windstream.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Darwi wrote:
> > > I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>
> > � � � � Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
> > goodbye, Darwi....
>
> > WM
>
> ?? am I missing something? Gotta quit drinkin tang...
>
> Dan Cline

Just before St. Patrick day?
Awww, no!
(PS. You're not the only one who find this message confusing. After
explanation by author, I assume that author consider me as a typical
Ladete and in need for some serious Posh training! )

> > > Darwi wrote:
> > > > I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>
> > > � � � � Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
> > > goodbye, Darwi....
>
> > > WM
>
> > ?? am I missing something? Gotta quit drinkin tang...
>
> > Dan Cline
>
> Just before St. Patrick day?
> Awww, no!
> (PS. You're not the only one who find this message confusing. After
> explanation by author, I assume that author consider me as a typical
> Ladete and in need for some serious Posh training! )

Hmm I had some good back and forth with a Joshua Zyber a while back.
That was fun, but re-reading those posts now it seems a little silly.
I still think I got the best of him, after all I am still here right?

On 10 Mar, 18:39, Dan Cline <paul_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Darwi wrote:
> > > > > I personally do not give a **** what you believe.
>
> > > > � � � � Wow! It's been years since I found it necessary to killfile here. Say
> > > > goodbye, Darwi....
>
> > > > WM
>
> > > ?? am I missing something? Gotta quit drinkin tang...
>
> > > Dan Cline
>
> > Just before St. Patrick day?
> > Awww, no!
> > (PS. You're not the only one who find this message confusing. After
> > explanation by author, I assume that author consider me as a typical
> > Ladete and in need for some serious Posh training! )
>
> Hmm I had some good back and forth with a Joshua Zyber a while back.
> That was fun, but re-reading those posts now it seems a little silly.
> I still think I got the best of him, after all I am still here right?

Ah, now we are talking about the marvels of the human communication.
I was just composing the long answer explaining you my position on the
communication via internet, when I realized that it's pointless. You
and that other individual who started this silly row, give to this
group and discussion much more value than I do. Therefore you decided
to treat this as some academic place with serious discussions. The
trouble is you can not get same respect and value of information just
by imposing academic language styles. Sorry, bro, but that is not what
makes academic world respectable. This is a place where any "sc....."
can write about their opinion and pose as who ever she/he wishes to
be.

This might be actually taken as an example of what was symbolized with
all those description of the religious believes in DUNE.

>
> T: Yes, but if you say that the Kwisatz Haderach "symbolized" a messiah,
> that could mean that the novel Dune constituted a kind of allegory for
> real
> historical events. In other words, FH might have meant for Paul to be a
> kind of Christ figure, or perhaps someone "who will usher in the messianic
> age of war before peace to the world," as in the orthodox Jewish belief.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

D: Not really. If you take something like symbol that does not mean that
you had to copy the whole history as well. Symbol for high amperage is
stylized lightning but that does not mean that you have to declare
every single person working with the electricity as B. Franklin just
because B.F. tried to catch a lighting.

T: Hi Darwi. I was using the term "symbol" in the sense of a "literary
symbol." One good definition of literary symbol is listed at:
http://www.virtualsalt.com/litterms.htm

"Something that on the surface is its literal self but which also has
another meaning or even several meanings. For example, a sword may be a
sword and also symbolize justice. A symbol may be said to embody an idea.
There are two general types of symbols: universal symbols that embody
universally recognizable meanings wherever used, such as light to symbolize
knowledge, a skull to symbolize death, etc., and constructed symbols that
are given symbolic meaning by the way an author uses them in a literary
work, as the white whale becomes a symbol of evil in Moby Dick."

Are you bilingual?

On 11 Mar, 22:02, "Tony" <t...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > T: Yes, but if you say that the Kwisatz Haderach "symbolized" a messiah,
> > that could mean that the novel Dune constituted a kind of allegory for
> > real
> > historical events. In other words, FH might have meant for Paul to be a
> > kind of Christ figure, or perhaps someone "who will usher in the messianic
> > age of war before peace to the world," as in the orthodox Jewish belief.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
>
> D: �Not really. If you take something like symbol that does not mean that
> you had to copy the whole history as well. Symbol for high amperage is
> stylized lightning but that does not mean that you have to declare
> every single person working with the electricity as B. Franklin just
> because B.F. tried to catch a lighting.
>
> T: �Hi Darwi. �I was using the term "symbol" in the sense of a "literary
> symbol." �One good definition of literary symbol is listed at:http://www..virtualsalt.com/litterms.htm

Thanks for link. I still think that one does not need to drag whole
history in.

>
> "Something that on the surface is its literal self but which also has
> another meaning or even several meanings. For example, a sword may be a
> sword and also symbolize justice. A symbol may be said to embody an idea.
> There are two general types of symbols: universal symbols that embody
> universally recognizable meanings wherever used, such as light to symbolize
> knowledge, a skull to symbolize death, etc., and constructed symbols that
> are given symbolic meaning by the way an author uses them in a literary
> work, as the white whale becomes a symbol of evil in Moby Dick."
>
> Are you bilingual?

More correct is multilingual. I speak fluently 5 languages.
Unfortunately, sometimes I tend to mix grammar and sentence styles. I
do apologize if that happened.

D: More correct is multilingual. I speak fluently 5 languages.
Unfortunately, sometimes I tend to mix grammar and sentence styles. I
do apologize if that happened.

T: You're lucky to be fluent in 5 languages. What is your first language?

(OK, I've got 100 solaris says they end up in a cheap 'Keen motel by
the end of the day!)