Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Julian-May-discuss] Metapsychic monkey-tricks

Expand Messages
  • OLIVER MUNDY
    Early in TMCL, a young ramapithecus (ape*) finds a golden torc (formerly the property of the immolated Tanu hero Bright Lugonn) and puts it on. A curious
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Early in TMCL, a young ramapithecus (ape*) finds a golden torc
      (formerly the property of the immolated Tanu hero Bright Lugonn) and puts it
      on. A curious incident follows: -

      "Smiling still, he showed his mother what he was now able to do.

      "She shrieked.

      "The child leaped in dismay . . . Before he could recover, his
      mother was upon him, yanking the ring over his head [etc.]"

      What could the baby rama possibly have done to cause such outrage in
      his mother? What use could an ape (and an immature ape at that) make of a
      power utterly beyond his experience? He might, just conceivably, stumble on
      the gift of psychokinesis (rather like poor Raimo Hakkinen, who is probably
      the nearest thing to an ape among the human operants known to us), and no
      doubt this would startle his mother, but it does not begin to account for
      her combination of rage and horror. Or did he try some crude form of
      coercion? - but then the mother, however shaken, seems to have remained in
      command of herself. The best I can offer is that the baby, intoxicated by
      his unfamiliar sense of empowerment, may have momentarily projected an
      illusion of some monstrous predator (which might represent his ideal of
      'power'), thus inventing what would afterwards be a classic ploy among the
      Firvulag.

      What does everyone else think? (I shall not now go into the
      question of the part which this particular torc - eventually recovered by
      the young rama - may have played in human evolution, since we have discussed
      this quite recently.)

      *Yes, I know an ape is not a monkey, but I could not resist the apt
      alliteration.

      Oliver Mundy.
    • Cleomadjai
      I wondered about that too - my imagination come up with some sort of telekinesis - maybe he levitated mum! That would certainly get her going. She probably
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I wondered about that too - my imagination come up with some sort of telekinesis - maybe he levitated mum!  That would certainly get her going.  She probably knew enough to know what he was doing wasn't natural and maybe recognised the torc from the dreaded Tanu and were probably desparate to avoid capture and enslavement.
         
        Cleomadjai
        Early in TMCL, a young ramapithecus (ape*) finds a golden torc
        (formerly the property of the immolated Tanu hero Bright Lugonn) and puts it
        on. A curious incident follows: -

        "Smiling still, he showed his mother what he was now able to do.

        "She shrieked.

        "The child leaped in dismay . . . Before he could recover, his
        mother was upon him, yanking the ring over his head [etc.]"

        What could the baby rama possibly have done to cause such outrage in
        his mother? What use could an ape (and an immature ape at that) make of a
        power utterly beyond his experience? He might, just conceivably, stumble on
        the gift of psychokinesis (rather like poor Raimo Hakkinen, who is probably
        the nearest thing to an ape among the human operants known to us), and no
        doubt this would startle his mother, but it does not begin to account for
        her combination of rage and horror. Or did he try some crude form of
        coercion? - but then the mother, however shaken, seems to have remained in
        command of herself. The best I can offer is that the baby, intoxicated by
        his unfamiliar sense of empowerment, may have momentarily projected an
        illusion of some monstrous predator (which might represent his ideal of
        'power'), thus inventing what would afterwards be a classic ploy among the
        Firvulag.

        What does everyone else think? (I shall not now go into the
        question of the part which this particular torc - eventually recovered by
        the young rama - may have played in human evolution, since we have discussed
        this quite recently.)

        *Yes, I know an ape is not a monkey, but I could not resist the apt
        alliteration.

        Oliver Mundy.



        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
        Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FIyolB/TM
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Julian-May-discuss/

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Julian-May-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






        Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

      • jimc_hjones
        ... wrote: maybe recognised the torc from the dreaded Tanu and were probably desparate to avoid capture and enslavement. Weren t the nearest Tanu hundreds of
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Julian-May-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Cleomadjai <cleomadjai@y...>
          wrote:

          maybe recognised the torc from the dreaded Tanu and were probably
          desparate to avoid capture and enslavement.

          Weren't the nearest Tanu hundreds of miles away? Aren't you predicating
          a very complex Rama society and communications capability if you're
          suggesting that a Rama at the Ries in Southern Germany would be aware
          of the Tanu domestication/enslavement of the Species primarily in
          France/Spain
        • OLIVER MUNDY
          Cleomadjai and Danny Grimes have offered answers to my question What did the baby rama in TMCL do tha caused such horror in his mother? My thanks to both.
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Cleomadjai and Danny Grimes have offered answers to my question
            'What did the baby rama in TMCL do tha caused such horror in his mother?'
            My thanks to both.

            Cleomadjai's suggestion - that the child uses his mother herself as
            the ball, so to speak, in a psychokinetic juggling-trick - makes a lot of
            sense. I do wonder, though, about the further idea that the mother's
            reaction may have been coloured by her (already existing) dread of the Tanu.
            It is true that there is nothing to locate the timing of this episode,
            beyond the obvious fact that it lies somewhere between the death-fight of
            Sharn and Lugonn and the arrival of Mme. Guderian's party - but, judging
            simply from its position in the book, I have always assumed that it occurs
            quite
            soon after the First Comers have left the Ship's Grave and before they have
            established their settlements, so that the mother rama could not yet have
            any conception
            of the Tanu and their mysterious ways. (In any event it is debatable
            whether the Tanu would ever have come so far east; at the time of
            recovering the first of the flyers, Madame and her party seem confident that
            they are beyond any risk of Tanu observation.)

            Danny thought that the young rama might have attempted coercion of
            his mother, only to fail because of the instinctive restraints of the
            parent-child relationship. The problem here is the wording of the
            sentence: 'He showed his mother what he was now *able* to do.' Would JM
            have described an *unsuccessful* attempt in these terms? - Turning to
            Danny's other comment, I think JM says somewhere that babies are natural
            coercers of their parents: that, in fact, it is only by exercising this
            instinctive power that these noisy, smelly, incontinent, demanding,
            red-faced little monsters can get the love they need! The relationship
            between Paul and Denis Remillard is a case apart, since (as we are told)
            Paul has experienced the full programme of training developed in the Milieu
            for young operants - the first human being to be educated in this way - and
            so he is bound by special superego constraints of which an 'amateur'
            operant, whether human or animal, would know nothing. Does not Denis
            himself, as an infant, compel his father Don to abandon an act of violence
            against him?

            Oliver Mundy.
          • Padraig Timmins
            A baby is completely incapable of understanding the love they have for their parents. All they know is that they NEED (to quote Spock in Star Trek - The
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment

              A baby is completely incapable of understanding the love they have for their parents.  All they know is that they NEED (to quote Spock in Star Trek - The Motion Picture - which IS a good film  despite most of the others being crap), and they will get it from whomever is present and willing to fulfil that NEED.  After all babies do go to anyone with a bottle in their hands who is willing to feed them.  Of course babies also begin to use senses such as smell to determine familiarity with adults (almost always the parents one would hope), but the long and short of it is, whoever is around to fulfil the baby’s needs and willing to do so is more than enough company for the baby.  It is mainly the parents NEED to help that baby and their understanding behind that NEED that develops fast, if not instantly into love, and I guess is therefore the route cause to the susceptibility of the parent to be ‘coerced’ into doing what the baby needs.

               

              Does that make sense?  Not sure myself?

               

              However, as a baby grows into a child it develops a proper intellectual and emotional attachment to the parent.  However, whilst a parents unconditional love is balanced with the need to bring the child up correctly and teach it right from wrong, and in doing so sometimes act towards the child in a way that the child may not seem as though the parent loves them, the child’s love is always motivated by self interest.  That is until they get older and they begin to appreciate (if indeed they ever TRULY appreciate it until the child has children of their own) that what their parents have done for them and they gradually become incapable of coercing their parents.

               

              Denis was incapable of coercing Rogi because Rogi was his emotional and intellectual father.  Paul could not coerce Denis for the same reason.  Denis COULD coerce Don because Don was NOT his emotional and intellectual father, just is biological one, which unless it is backed up with the emotional and intellectual side of parenthood is fairly meaningless.

               

              Paul’s training has nothing to do with his inability to coerce Denis as far as I am concerned.  Paul and Denis relationship is no different from any healthy father / son relationship and THAT is the important issue.  The concept of children being unable to coerce their parents is first mentioned, I am sure, in Intervention, before Paul is even a twinkle in Denis’ metapsychic eye.

               

              Now, Paul and Marc’s relationship is another matter?  There is another example of a relationship we first see in Don and Denis’ relationship.  Biology had nothing to do with it.  Denis and Marc simply had no emotional attachment to their respective biological fathers.

               

              However, it simply can’t be that either you can or you can’t coerce your parents.  There have to be, as with EVERYTHING in life, shades of grey in between, indicative of the strength of the emotional bond between that parent and child.

               

              The long and short of it is, as far as I am concerned, in JM’s mythology a baby can coerce the parent because the baby’s survival DEPENDS on it.  The child, young adult, adult, is progressively less able to coerce their parent because they gain an understanding and appreciation that they wouldn’t be around without the massive support and love their parents have devoted to them.  However, even this strong pull can be overridden by a careless or ignorant parent who does not invest emotional and intellectual time in their offspring, with varying degrees of effect.

               

              As for the Rama’s?  Who knows......

              Cheers

              Padster




              ========================================
              Message Received: Oct 12 2005, 11:24 PM
              From: "OLIVER MUNDY"
              To: Julian-May-discuss@yahoogroups.com
              Cc:
              Subject: Re: [Julian-May-discuss] Metapsychic monkey-tricks

                      Cleomadjai and Danny Grimes have offered answers to my question
              'What did the baby rama in TMCL do tha caused such horror in his mother?'
              My thanks to both.

                      Cleomadjai's suggestion - that the child uses his mother herself as
              the ball, so to speak, in a psychokinetic juggling-trick - makes a lot of
              sense.   I do wonder, though, about the further idea that the mother's
              reaction may have been coloured by her (already existing) dread of the Tanu.
              It is true that there is nothing to locate the timing of this episode,
              beyond the obvious fact that it lies somewhere between the death-fight of
              Sharn and Lugonn and the arrival of Mme. Guderian's party - but, judging
              simply from its position in the book, I have always assumed that it occurs
              quite
              soon after the First Comers have left the Ship's Grave and before they have
              established their settlements, so that the mother rama could not yet have
              any conception
              of the Tanu and their mysterious ways.   (In any event it is debatable
              whether the Tanu would ever have come so far east;  at the time of
              recovering the first of the flyers, Madame and her party seem confident that
              they are beyond any risk of Tanu observation.)

                      Danny thought that the young rama might have attempted coercion of
              his mother, only to fail because of the instinctive restraints of the
              parent-child relationship.   The problem here is the wording of the
              sentence:  'He showed his mother what he was now *able* to do.'  Would JM
              have described an *unsuccessful* attempt in these terms? - Turning to
              Danny's other comment, I think JM says somewhere that babies are natural
              coercers of their parents:  that, in fact, it is only by exercising this
              instinctive power that these noisy, smelly, incontinent, demanding,
              red-faced little monsters can get the love they need!  The relationship
              between Paul and Denis Remillard is a case apart, since (as we are told)
              Paul has experienced the full programme of training developed in the Milieu
              for young operants - the first human being to be educated in this way - and
              so he is bound by special superego constraints of which an 'amateur'
              operant, whether human or animal, would know nothing.  Does not Denis
              himself, as an infant, compel his father Don to abandon an act of violence
              against him?

                      Oliver Mundy.

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.