Category: Culture

So the other day I’m sitting around watching a Stargate SG-1 episode, and they’re going through this wormhole. Looks like this:

And I’m thinking: Why does it look like that? Why does it look like anything? The event horizon of the Stargate wormholes is supposed to disintegrate you into your component molecules and transmit them thorugh the wormhole. If you were totally discombobulated, you shouldn’t see anything.

But then we have evidence on the script-level of folks experiencing things in the wormhole, talking about what a "wild ride" they are and such.

So I think: Maybe when the wormhole disintegrates you, it doesn’t totally de-pattern you, it simply restructures your body in such a way that it can travel through the wormhole, but all the while you and your consciousness are still functioning. Your body’s been re-arranged, but it’s all still operational.

So then I thought: Hey, there’s evidence of the same thing on Star Trek. In that there Realm of Fear episode of Next Gen, Lt. BroccoliBarclay has some unusual experiences in the transporter beam (which he’s deathly afraid of [left]).

He even gets into a tussle with some critters that are up to no good in the transporter beam, though they later turn out to be something other than they appear (right).

The thing is: He’s conscious during all of this. So on Star Trek, like on Stargate, we have evidence of people remaining conscious and in some sense "together" during a period of de-materialization.

Now that may shed light on a long standing "mystery" in Star Trek: Namely, why you don’t simply die and get cloned each time you enter the transporter.

They recently referred to this problem in the episode of Enterprise where they had the inventor of the transporter guest star. During one scene they referred to all the "metaphysical" worries of folks about whether the transporter killed you and made a copy, at which point Trip looked around the dinner table and noted that, if that were true, "We’re all copies here."

Well, despite the fact I once saw a very neat cartoon on PBS exploring this premise (an animated character made a transporter transmitter and receiver out of two refrigerators then transported herself and pondered the moral implications of having done so, only to discover that despite the fact she died in the transmitter, she is now a "guiltless clone"), it would seem that Trek (and SG-1) ahve both provided evidence that this is not the case.

It seems to me that if your consciousness remains functional through the experience of being de-materialized then that’s at least presumptive evidence that it’s still you on the other end.

So the transporter and the Stargates are not killer+cloner devices.

Of course, since consciousness can exist independently of physical form, this leaves open the question of whether they are killer+resurrecter devices or just "repackaged for easy transport" devices.

A reader writes:

Dear Jimmy,

This has been a rough day in a rough week and the news from the Vatican has me totally bummed out. What to do? I had a spare moment and thought that a little distraction would help. I like Bruce Willis. I like Tarantino. I decided to see Sin City.

This movie is one of the worst things to see with the eyes. It is very anti-establishment and has some real over-the-top anti-Catholic moments in it as well. It sickens me that in this time of crisis, I cannot go to a simple movie without being blasted by the hatred of some adolescent mind.

Anywho, my advice: do not see this fifty-pound monkey that sits on your head relentlessly banging it … I mean, movie.

Sin Cerely,
Namewithheld

A thought: I don’t know what movies are playing right now, but one can still see movies that aren’t Evil. May I suggest The Incredibles (just out on DVD)? It’s InconceivableIncredible!

Thanks for the warning about fifty-pound monkeysmovies!

You know you’re a couch potato when you watch reality on TV.

Reality shows, that is.

This season I’ve been watching "Survivor: Palau," "The Amazing Race 7," and "The Apprentice [3]."  I tend to be an on- and off-viewer of these shows, and usually hop on the bandwagon after the first season — and the initial fad — has passed by.  I didn’t start watching "Survivor" or "The Apprentice" until Season 2.  I only started regularly watching "The Amazing Race" this season, and that was because of the entrance of "Survivor"-sweethearts Amber Brkich and Rob Mariano into the Race.

One of the interesting aspects of the reality shows is the moral issues that arise during the course of the season.  For example, if you watched "The Amazing Race" this week, you may have noticed that when one of the leading teams flipped its jeep, another leading team stopped but others (notably Rob ‘n Ambuh) sped on.  Later, Rob and Amber were especially held up for scorn by the team that stopped (Lynn and Alex) because R & A leapfrogged into second while Lynn and Alex ended up in fourth.

So, were Lynn and Alex right?  Was it a moral obligation to stop?

If practical assistance could be given such as medical care or the sacraments, sure.  Human life is much more important than any game — or the possibility of a million dollars.  Of course, if you can call for help, you should; and if you have actually witnessed the accident occur, you should report that to the authorities.  But if all one could do would be to murmur sympathetically and gawk at the accident, there is no obligation to stop, anymore than there would be if you saw the same accident by the side of the road on your way to work.    Indeed, when you would be a hindrance by staying, moving along — and thus keeping the accident site clear of spectators (as distinguished from witnesses) — would be the right thing to do.

We’ve been hearing about the Clone Wars ever since Alec Guinness first mentioned them in the original Star Wars movie back in 1977.

But we’ve never seen them.

Even now we probably won’t really get to see them on the big screen. The first clone war begins at the end of Episode II and the last is reported to end in Episode III, probably (this is speculation on my part, so don’t spoil it, anybody who has specific knowledge) early so that the story can focus on the fall of Annakin Skywalker.

But we have the unique chance to see the Clone Wars on the small screen, either TV or computer. Lucas contracted to have a clone war cartoon series made by cartoon action-master Genndy Tartakovsky (known for such action-oriented toons as The Powerpuff Girls and the visually-stunning Samuari Jack) for Cartoon Network.

The results turned out well enough that Lucas asked Tartakovsky to go back to the drawing board and do a sequel clone war cartoon series that would lead directly in to Episode III. In fact, the final shot of the last animated clone war toon is supposed to be the same as the opening shot of Episode III (immediately after the roll-up).

Events in the second clone war toon series also directly set the stage for the Episode III roll-up, which refers to events occurring in the second animated series, conferring on this at least a semi-canonical status (unlike the rest of the "Expanded Universe" materials).

This presents Episode III spoiler-avoiders with a unique dilemmaopportunity. Watching the antimated clone war series ain’t really spoiling Episode III for oneself if Lucas has put the material out there specifically to set the stage for Episode III, so you could watch them in good conscience.

If you wanna do that, how do you go about doing it?

Well, chapters 1-20 are now out on a DVD called Star Wars: Clone Wars, Volume 1.

You can also read a brief, spoiler-light summary of them here.

Chapters 21-25, the ones that immediately set the stage for Episode III aren’t on DVD yet (and I haven’t been able to find out when they will be) BUT, for a limited time only, you can

WATCH THEM ONLINE HERE.

For those who care about such things, here is my non-spoiler review of the two series:

The first twenty chapters were produced as 3 1/2 minute segments which, together, form a story 69 minutes long. The need to have each 3 1/2 minutes form a self-contained chapter severely hampers story development and tilts the series too heavily toward action rather than plot or character development, though Star Wars fans will still want to see the series. In my opinion the series gets better as it goes, with more plot and character development occuring as it progresses. The action also gets better, and the climax of Annakin’s personal arc is particularly effective, as it is clear he is still moving toward the Dark Side.

The second series of five episodes has chapters that are twelve minutes long (for a total of an hour), and this makes a night-and-day difference. Suddenly there is far more room for plot and character development, and the second series is far superior to the first. The series is more richly-drawn, both metaphorically (better character development) and literally (better animation). The backgrounds are particularly good (even though I saw them on a 2" x 3" screen). There are significant bits of Jedi lore that are filled in, and the climactic battle that sets the stage for Episode III really has some surprisingly dramatic action, including intense and creative light saber work that I’m hoping they copy (or even surpass) on the big screen.

Okay, remember that Valorum guy from the Star Wars films who was chancellor before Palpatine and who was "mired in baseless allegations" and was thus forced to resign, leading to the election of Palpatine as the new chancellor?

Yeah, him.

Okay, here’s the deal: His full name is allegedly Finis Valorum according to Star Wars gunk I was reading on the Web. (PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Verified it from the official site.)

If so, tThat’s interesting. In the films he represents the last, virtuous leader of the Republic who is brought down through the machinations of evil, leading to the rise of the Empire.

So what’s his name’s connection with that?

In Latin finis valorum means "the End of the Valorous Ones."

Go fig.

Wonder how aware of that Lucas was.