The Sword and Laser discussion

I had to look it up, though I remember it existed, but there's a quote from Frankenstein: The 1818 Text that came to mind.

Mary Shelley wrote: "Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow."

Obviously, when it comes to Frankenstein, the warning is about acquiring knowledge without thinking through the consequences. But in some sense there is a parallel here. Does acquiring knowledge always mean the loss of innocence? Does knowing the truth about the something remove some of the wonder from it?

Seth wrote: Does knowing the truth about the something remove some of the wonder from it?

Not sure if this is what you mean, but I'll never forget in my high school U.S. history class having to analyze The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in terms of the political, economic, and social events of America in the 1890s. It sucked the joy right out of that book.

Another thought that comes to mind is the story of Adam and Eve and eating from the Tree of Knowledge.

Seth wrote: "Does knowing the truth about something remove some of the wonder from it?"

I would say: If anything, knowing the truth about something increases the wonder.

Knowing how unlikely it is for example that we as humankind are here, how rare and extraordinary our development is in the grand scheme of the universe, it *vastly* increases my appreciation of the beauty of the universe and us in it.

So - knowing we are made of the remains of exploding stars and that it was all necessary to get us here to be able to talk about this topic - now that's beauty!

Jan wrote: "So - knowing we are made of the remains of exploding stars and that it was all necessary to get us here to be able to talk about this topic - now that's beauty! ..."

I absolutely agree with you.

Though it does remind me of this quotation from Terry Pratchett's character Death:

"HUMAN BEINGS MAKE LIFE SO INTERESTING. DO YOU KNOW, THAT IN A UNIVERSE SO FULL OF WONDERS, THEY HAVE MANAGED TO INVENT BOREDOM?"

Jan wrote: "I would say: If anything, knowing the truth about something increases the wonder."

I completely agree. The more we learn about science the more amazing the universe is.

Knowledge beats the hell out of the alternative, ignorance.

Not once in all my years of study and research have I ever thought that knowing the truth about the something has removed some of the wonder from it?

But then an appreciation of science usually leads to the understanding that we know a lot less than we thought. When I started studying we thought we understood the vast majority of matter in the Universe, now it's down to 5%.

Of course knowledge can be used for evil, but so can a rock.

How little do we discover in comparison of those things which now are and forever will be hidden from our sight? The whole of which I am fully persuaded no one will ever be able to dive into, and to explain their causes and effects.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

Iain wrote: "Knowledge beats the hell out of the alternative, ignorance. "

Would Piranesi agree at the end of the book, though?
(view spoiler)[
He's certainly driven to understand the truth of his situation, but doesn't seem terribly happy with the end result. It seems like his newfound knowledge makes his world more mundane. Even without his memories, he feels like he has to take on some of the responsibilities of his past life and it keeps him away from the blissful existence that had been accompanied by his ignorance.
(hide spoiler)]

Or, to use another character - If you're Peter Pan, are you leaving Neverland?

Seth wrote: "Iain wrote: "Knowledge beats the hell out of the alternative, ignorance. "

Would Piranesi agree at the end of the book, though?

He's certainly driven to understand the truth of his situation, bu..."

If you lived your life in a simulator, or an alternative world that is hidden from the rest of reality, and found out, would you want to stay? For me the answer is easily no. And if I lived my whole life in a alternate reality and found out after my existence was terminated I would feel cheated.

Seth wrote: "Iain wrote: "Knowledge beats the hell out of the alternative, ignorance. "

Would Piranesi agree at the end of the book, though?


OK, different question…

(view spoiler)[
Piranesi has a type of aggressive magical dementia.. He has already lost all knowledge of his pervious life and the indications are he will continue to deteriorate if he remains.

(hide spoiler)]

The labirynth is an analog of Plato’s cave. Surrounded by reflections of the real world. Being brought back into the light will hurt your eyes.

Also is happiness the only goal in life.

This is a difficult question, but in the end Piranesi cannot make any real choices unless he knows what he is choosing. Note at the end he can return when he want. He has had choice and agency returned not removed.

Peter Pan of course knows where he is and the choices available to him so not really relevant.

I think it makes sense to distinguish between the big picture and the personal experience. Overall more knowledge about the world is a good thing that doesn't diminish the beauty of the world, but where inter-personnel relationships and peace of mind or even mental health comes into play, ignorance may be bliss. Those white lies we tell to protect others, I think they are absolutely necessary for us as humans to live our lives.

I have been thinking about this a lot. When my dad was in hospital after brain tumor surgery his brother died and we had to decide if we should tell him. As this was during the pandemic we weren't allowed to visit him, so he would have had to deal with this information all by himself alone in a hospital room fighting for his life. So we decided not to tell him - for his protection but maybe even More so our own. Because if we had told my dad we would always have wondered now if him not making it had been caused by having to deal with this information when he needed to recover. And so we decided to keep this from him.

So I think in this case not knowing was better than knowing. But it was definitely a moral dilemma.

I think there is a distinction here between knowledge, loss of innocence. Knowledge is understanding the world and how it works better, such as Piranesi learning his true past and where he actually is. This is part of knowing oneself better and understanding where one is in the world.

Yet, in knowing more, one loses innocence, as Piranesi does in his expanding knowledge. Through it, one loses the more simple life where the answers are easy or not even important. One gains more knowledge and, in the process, changes. (view spoiler)[ In his loss and gain of knowledge, Piranesi literally changes who he is and becomes a new person. And yet, the last chapter really brings home that he has not lost anything from the work he lived in. He sees the statues of the labyrinth in the real world and still sees the wonder of it. His former self was so wrapped up in research and his works, that he lost that sense of wonder. Piranesi in the world now sees that magic, and can apply it to his view. (hide spoiler)] In the end, it is our own view of ourselves that determines what knowledge is and how it affects us.

Just to add some references, loss of innocence through learning is a common theme, such as with Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain, my favorite quote:
“Now when I had mastered the language of this water, and had come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition. But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be restored me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry, had gone out of the majestic river!”

See, this is what’s so valuable about this group: this thread makes me want to read the book despite the fact I found the previous one so dull.

Of course knowledge from dubious sources can be dangerous, as we have found in the internet age of loony conspiracy theories.

Knowing how to discern peer reviewed scientifically accurate information from BS made up by some idiot in his basement and vomited onto a keyboard becomes more important every day.

Richard wrote: "Just to add some references, loss of innocence through learning is a common theme, such as with Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain, my favorite quote:
“Now when I had mastered the language of this water, and had come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition. But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be restored me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry, had gone out of the majestic river!”

See and that's the thing I don't get (sorry, Mark Twain); Why should there be a loss of beauty or poetry because I can understand something intellectually? I can still enjoy a sunset even if I know it's not the sun vanishing but Earth rotating that's causing it. I can admire the dome of a chapel even if I know the mathematics why it supports itself. I can get lost in music even if I know a voice is digitally improved.

The only thing where I maybe see this as relevant is in storytelling. Knowing the tropes, knowing how stories are usually constructed, how things are set up and paid off, can make you think "Ah, I see what you did there! That side character who just tells the detective where to go and otherwise seems totally irrelevant must be the killer, as this would otherwise not be a speaking role!" - and even then I can get enjoyment out of knowing the "rules"! Like "Ah, I see what you did there! You sly bastard, that's really well done and clever!"

In the end, the audio commentaries for "The Lord of the Rings" "spoiled" so many tricks, but knowing how they made Frodo appear smaller or that Viggo Mortensen actually broke his toe in that scene, made me appreciate the trilogy even more not less....

Tassie Dave wrote: "Of course knowledge from dubious sources can be dangerous, as we have found in the internet age of loony conspiracy theories."

GIGO is always a danger.

I used to have this discussion with my aunt when I was a kid. (Me: 12, she: 53.) My contention was that you could learn something of value from anyone or anything, while she maintained only duly authorized arbiters could impart knowledge. There’s worth in both, I think, as well as perils and pitfalls in each.

Jan wrote: "The only thing where I maybe see this as relevant is in storytelling. Knowing the tropes, knowing how stories are usually constructed, how things are set up and paid off, can make you think "Ah, I see what you did there! That side character who just tells the detective where to go and otherwise seems totally irrelevant must be the killer, as this would otherwise not be a speaking role!" - and even then I can get enjoyment out of knowing the "rules"! Like "Ah, I see what you did there! You sly bastard, that's really well done and clever!""

I’m with you. More knowledge is better than ignorance, and more knowledge = more poetry. The beauty is *different* than it was before, but it’s still there.

And when you do all mystery in storytelling without any revelation, you end up with a JJ Abrams-type of bad storytelling. Not knowing is a choice, but it’s usually an unsatisfactory one.

Trike wrote: "I’m with you. More knowledge is better than ignorance, and more knowledge = more poetry. The beauty is *different* than it was before, but it’s still there.

Maybe the only *true* innocence lost is learning the truth about Santa? ;-)

Jan wrote: "
Maybe the only *true* innocence lost is learning the truth about Santa? ;-)
"


Nooooooo!

Jan wrote: “Maybe the only true innocence lost is learning the truth about Santa”

For me it was the tooth fairy. I grew up in a very religious home and was not allowed to believe in Santa. I was devastated in second grade when a kid told me there was no such thing as the tooth fairy. I ran into the bathroom and cried.

I also grew up in a very (alternate) religious house. We not only weren't allowed to believe in Santa, but also the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.

I don't feel that I missed out. My parents never let us go without presents or chocolate around those times. I just knew earlier than most kids, where mine really came from.