Space Opera Q4: Brexit, Trump, theatre: Marry me?

NeilNjae

@WildCard said:

I see the aesthetic stage all through the book. Sentient entities find meaning in the music, in the theatre and pageantry of the Grand Prix.

Some sentient entities in the book find meaning in making connections with others. Dess is particularly bad at that.

Does anyone in this book make a leap of faith, finding meaning in subjective experience of the transcendence of the universe itself? Or does this book argue against the possibility of this kind of meaning?

In terms of aligning the book to Kirkengaard, I can see the aesthetic stage. Is the ethic stage is more clearly seen before the book, in the founding of the Grand Prix itself? It's a way of forming connections between people/species.

As for the transcendence, my quick reading about Kirkengaard implies that he equates "the highest order of being" with "believer in Christianity", and I seriously doubt that's true. What does Kirkengaard's "faith" look like when divorced from Christianity?

Apocryphal

Does anyone in this book make a leap of faith, finding meaning in subjective experience of the transcendence of the universe itself?

The author makes a leap of faith that the universe will be irrational, finding meaning in her subjective experience. Then goes on to write a piece of fiction to express that.

WildCard

@NeilNjae said:
As for the transcendence, my quick reading about Kirkengaard implies that he equates "the highest order of being" with "believer in Christianity", and I seriously doubt that's true. What does Kirkengaard's "faith" look like when divorced from Christianity?

I think there are some non-theistic continuations of Kierkegaard’s absurdist project, without the particularities of Christianity. Ronald Dworkin’s religious atheism seems to fit the bill, finding inherent meaning in the universe.

WildCard

@Apocryphal said:
The author makes a leap of faith that the universe will be irrational, finding meaning in her subjective experience. Then goes on to write a piece of fiction to express that.

I think you’re exactly right. When I typed, “Does anyone in the book,” I thought I was restricting my question too much, but I went with it anyway, since my examples for the aesthetic and ethical,stages of faith were characters in the book.

This book is not a work of despair at the irrationality of the universe but revels in it.

RichardAbbott

There's also a definite article of faith (on the author's part, taken for granted by the characters outside of Planet Earth) that life wil always and invariably find a way to develop and thrive in the most difficult and improbable circumstances. A definite stand against the "habitable planets have to look like Earth" position that some folk appear to assume. As such I definitely see it in the EE (Doc) Smith lineage and a long way from the Asimov one in which aliens virtually never appear (yes, there are one or two exceptions, but they are very exceptional)

NeilNjae

@WildCard said:
This book is not a work of despair at the irrationality of the universe but revels in it.

Catherynne M. Valente said:
Life is beautiful and life is stupid.

I think that's a given from the book.