Intergalactic Summit

Let's talk about art.

If last time I spoke on the Caldari, I spoke more lyrically, this time I will be direct and blunt. This may appeal to the Caldari themselves, who have historically had little time for the arts: let form follow function, and any "art" emerge in the engineering.

You could say that the Caldari were born in a snowstorm. Every major trait that distinguishes them as a people comes down to being solidly prepared to eke out an iron-age living (or a surviving, anyway; it's not coincidence that the Gallente made it into space first) on a giant ball of mud and ice that by some evolutionary miracle manages to sprout trees.

The premium placed on material wealth (abundant firewood, well-stocked supplies, good sturdy walls, and a well-thatched roof all count); the insistence on group identity and cooperation (getting in the harvest with first frost maybe a night away is not a one-man task, and neither is warding off starving unfortunates only too happy to ensure their own survival at your expense); the focus on leadership-by-merit (you absolutely do not want to give charge of your winter stores to a fool, no matter how popular he is); the emphasis on honor (you absolutely do not want those stores in the hands of someone less than trustworthy, either); and the practical-to-the-point-of-tedium outlook (no time for your drawings, boy-- there's wood to cut!): every one is calculated to let a people survive, if not thrive, in a climate that persistently tries to do them in.

All of these go into "what it is to be Caldari." The real question of the Caldari State is not what made the Caldari as they are; it's what's kept them this way. The Caldari have been in interstellar contact for centuries. They were members of the exceedingly liberal Gallente Federation. They haven't had to worry seriously about starving and freezing for probably about that long.

So what is it, exactly, that has the Caldari studying, say, starship engineering, instead of literature? Why so few Caldari poets? So few Caldari singers? Playwrights, actors? Visual artists?

"Such people are useless." ... except that they're clearly not. Leaving communication aside, a pleasing visual style will sell a product, if you want to approach it like that. Art can also serve a utilitarian role as food for the mind, a use you'd think the meritocratic Caldari would find a place for. And then there is personal enrichment-- feeding the soul, as well as the mind, giving life more depth than mere survival and pleasure.

The Caldari are not deaf to the importance of any of these. Caldari designs, though utilitarian in form, have often even served as artistic works in their own right. So why, still, the general refusal to see the value in flat-out art?

The clearest reason is that the Caldari did not make it into space first in their home system; they made it into space second. First were the Gallente, who love art and artistic expression.

Throughout their history as people no longer confined to a single world, the Caldari have played (or felt themselves to have played) second chair to the Gallente. And yet, the Gallente are culturally everything the Caldari are not: individualistic, egalitarian, passionate, impulsive, often proudly impractical. That such people should make it to the stars first, should be in a position to offer aid and, of all things, pity to the Caldari...!

The arrival of the Gallentean CDS (Cultural Deliverance Society, and don't think the Caldari were blind to the implications) must have struck the Civire and Deteis in much the same manner as being smacked in the face, by the universe, with an angry porcupine. And yet, practicality speaks up, you can't very well turn away help just because the source galls you.

So-- the Caldari accepted the help, and were "uplifted" to Gallentean technological levels. But humiliation is, itself, a potent cultural force, or we'd all (ethnic Caldari and Achura, both) still be part of the Federation. The Caldari chafed under Gallentean leadership, stubbornly sticking to their own traditions and communities with an eye toward proving that they could do just as well as the Gallente-- better, in fact. The Caldari inferiority complex manifested itself in another, and particularly emphatic ingredient in what it means to be Caldari: "We are not the Gallente."

If this had not by itself been sufficient to render cultural change among the Caldari downright glacial, and perhaps it would not have, the Caldari eventually won their freedom from the Gallente-- at the cost of their homeworld. Imagine being able to win free of a particularly hated overlord's rule after having a few choice, if not wholly unprovoked, atrocities perpetrated against you and yours, but having to leave your mother behind as a hostage.

It's that kind of shame. It's a loss that generations of Caldari have longed, painfully, to reverse.

Gallente design is full of curved surfaces, so Caldari designers speak a language of angles. Gallente embrace individual freedoms, so Caldari reflexively dismiss them. Gallente dress flamboyantly, so Caldari dress plainly, and often in a military style.

And the Gallente still love their arts.

In refusing to be manipulated by the Gallente, the Caldari have cornered themselves in the position of resisting whatever the Gallente stand for. In each case, there are independent reasons to be presented: nobody need mention the word "Gallente" in explaining Caldari design philosophy. Yet the pattern of reaction is clear, as is its limiting quality.

Ships, clothing, government, ... art.

Hm. It is true that I have not, perhaps, been directly very critical. I was tired at time of writing, and having trouble thinking, but felt that I had gone long enough, having promised a new essay "within a few days" nearly a week ago. Perhaps things will develop as we go.

The Caldari are unusual, a little, in that they wear many of their more troublesome qualities plainly and proudly. To name just a few, they tend to be insular, callous, ruthless, and materialistic. The Caldari, themselves, however, are unlikely to recognize any of these as a flaw. The challenge when writing for a larger audience is not figuring out how to explain to the Caldari that it's not, from all angles, a good thing to act heartlessly towards outsiders; they're generally well aware that not everybody looks kindly on that.

Instead, the challenge is to explain to the larger audience why the Caldari are as they are, and why what they are works for them-- why these are "small truths," functional fictions that form the basic underlying structure of a civilization, not marks of ignorance, arrogance, or (as the Gallente propagandists would have it) barbarism.

Still....

If you wish me to be direct and up-front in my criticism, I would say that the Caldari came of age under difficult circumstances-- circumstances, however, that they left behind even before the first war with the Gallente. Like a retired veteran of many campaigns who cannot forget or put aside the bitter lessons of a hard life, they continue to live as though the winter winds never stopped howling.

Perhaps that wind does, indeed, howl still. After all, the Gallente proved a deadlier foe than the elements, and the two powers are once again at war. I am not sure that the Caldari culture is in all ways suited to this new struggle, but an aspect of the fight is the Gallentean desire to change the Caldari and the Caldari struggle to remain themselves. Being pressured into changing would be a form of giving ground-- admitting that, if the Gallente are not precisely correct about the Caldari, neither are the Caldari quite correct about themselves.

To a culture stubbornly holding to its own traditions, this is in no way acceptable-- except, of course, as a matter of necessity.

That necessity has not yet made itself plain.

I suppose I am unsure about the audience you prefer to reach. You say here that you are trying to explain the Caldari to the "larger audience", but while your essay on the Gallente was also directed impersonally it seemed to me that you were speaking more directly to the Gallente themselves, by highlighting something others might see at the core of their society and hinting at the strengths and limits of it. I did not see that as fully here and am unclear about how you intended to direct it.

One does not need to be very critical. There is nothing wrong with being proud of Caldari traditions and our approach to surviving. However we are imperfect beings, so even if we were walking a perfect path there would be room for improvement. Observant commentary on where we misstep can help us cleave to our path, although I might prefer the "gentle chiding" I referred to originally rather than direct criticism. There is more than enough of the latter, both from our enemies and our own apologists.

Besides I think only the most ardent voices among us would call ours a perfect path. It is the right path, for us, but not for everyone everywhere nor even for everyone among us.

For my part I would say that some winds always howl.

You speak of our renewed struggle against the Federation, but that seems an inconstant one; we did live without war for a long time, and it is remotely possible that someday all the ethnicities of the Gallente and Caldari will come to terms as once the Civire and Deteis did when we formed the Raata. Such a rapprochement might take millenia rather than years, but as we capsuleers are potentially immortal we may even live to see such a day.

The winds I would point to would be those of the universe itself, or at least all we know of it. Seyllin ought to remind us not to be complacent in the face of a capricious universe. From that perspective the harshness of Caldari Prime was only the first lesson, and we are still coming to terms with the next one. Of course you have far more experience with dancing the bitter edge than I can claim, so it is hardly my place to declare myself as wise in such matters.

Or if you want to be a bit more metaphysical, perhaps we should be glad for the endless winds: Cold Wind who brings us wisdom, Wind-of-the-West who sends us opportunities for profit, Mountain Wind who keeps us aware of the shifting world, and Storm Wind who challenges us to strengthen ourselves. That is a bit rarefied a view for my taste, but I have known others who follow The Way and they are part of who we Caldari are, too.

I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed with that analysis too. While I do not disagree with anything (except the following), you almost sound hesitant to speak about the flaws- the troublesome qualities as you seem to name them - and the whole tone of your essay is at best partially biased.

You mention a tragedy in the case of the gallente, yet here you keep refering to the Caldari perseverance rather than using similar choices of words. While in the case of the gallente the major part of your words sounded quite condescending or rather, impregnated of mesured empathy, implying that you would have found the "story of the gallente" to be "pathetic" (in the first meaning of the word, which is inspiring pity), here at the contrary, the tone is quite glorifying.

I did not want to point it out in the first essay since I hoped you could do the same for the Caldari, but...



They are not unusual, they are like any society. Most Minmatar are very proud of their anger, most true Amarrians will never really understand why being condescending is "troublesome", the same way a lot of Caldari will be proud of being insular.

I am not painting(in the bad sense of the word anyway) nor I have said that being a patriot is a bad thing. I 've said that being too much of a patriot(as being too much of anything) is a bad thing, and in this case it breeds war and pain.

Not that there are not ultra patriots in the Federation as well, but in comparison the State and the Empire has patriotism in the core of the society.

As for the Republic, my knowledge(and i dont say that to imply that my saying is the absolute right saying) is that the people in the Republic are not ultimately fighting for the Republic itself. They are fighting in the name of the lost ones and the ones who are behind. They are fighting not for the banners of the Republic but for the banners of vengeance.

They are patriotic only as of their race, the Minmatar, not the Republic because dont be confused the Republic doesnt equally means Minmatar as well. Dont forget many dont believe in the Republic but believe in their tribes only. A huge political debate nowadays in the Republic.

Their patriotism is based around their race, not political identity as is the situation with the Caldari and the Gallente.

However i feel that the talk for the Minmatar should be made to a different post Ms Maris-haani.

As for how to address me that i leave it in your discretion as long as it is showing the same respect i show to you(which trust me the respect i show for you Ms Maris-haani is enormous). I am not an Uakan, nor a Usari and Ualaa although i was raised within the environment of an Ualaa.

For the State officially i have become a Jaiji, a Baka or even a Hnolku bringing dishonor to my family simply because i selected my political affiliation to be Anarchy.

While I understand you do not share the worldview of the Amarr nor our faith, you do us a disservice by claiming we are incapable of critical thought just because we hold certain things to be true and do not allow it to be shaken by outside and opposing viewpoints.

If you're going to consider yourself an intellectual and take it upon yourself to proclaim to others the view of the cluster from your perspective, you should avoid insults both masked and blatant. Simply because we do not heed your counsel does not mean we are not capable of critical thought. On the contrary, critical thinking is an inherent quality of sound theology.

I am more than willing to engage you in dialog and debate but I would expect a modicum of respect as I would offer the same to you.

Peoples are always believe in something.
Ones believe in God.
Ones believe in Maker.
Others believe in their absence.
How strong is your critical approach doesn't matter, if you touch subjects that nothing can prove or refute. All you have left is to believe.
And if you don't believe, you are not a human, but a machine.

Mr. Amith:

Yes, I thought that might upset you.

This is likely to come as cold comfort, but what you need to understand is that I am not aiming to insult-- only to describe. The Amarr, by and large, are believers, proudly so. Depth of faith in the absence of proof is a thing that your culture values. You can call this many things (and I would include "admirable" for reasons I will explain at another time), but applying critical thought to one's own faith is not something the Amarr, by and large, consider a good thing. Applying it to make sense of certain aspects of scripture is one thing; asking, "Does this make sense?" is quite another.

Furthermore, like the Caldari, the Amarr are a hierarchical society in which the bulk of the thinking is expected to be done at the upper levels. Those "lower down" tend to focus more on building their lives and providing what is needed by their superiors. Too much independence of thought often leads to dissent, in our case (jaalan are tolerated, but not valued), and is apt to lead to heresy in yours.

Am I wrong?

The Gallente, by contrast, tend to take a certain pride in the supposed logic and rationality of their way of belief (or lack of same), and every individual is ideally expected to be a free thinker. It's a whole nation of (largely amateur) philosophers.

The difference is the one between suggesting that a person of faith examine that faith in the cold light of reason and suggesting that a person who focuses on reason apply that reason to an aspect of that person's life that is built on faith.

Let me be very clear: your culture and faith terrify me. They pose a direct, if not immediate, threat to my faith and my people. That your culture functions well on its own terms eases this terror by maybe one notch: you are not some dysfunctional disaster about to sweep over everybody. Humanity would survive, and might even thrive, under your care.

... but everything I find most valuable about the Achura would be lost.

I respect you enough to expect you not to need me to hide my views, Mr. Amith. Some of what I say will be pleasant to you; some will be harsh. If you take umbrage to the harsher observations-- take as insult what is intended to simply reflect my understanding as it stands-- then our discussions will often be difficult because I do frankly regard your faith as a deadly threat.

The fact that you do not like what I say does not mean that it was calculated to do harm.

Yes it does. There is a difference between comprehending subjectivity as a part of everyone, and using it as an excuse "not to care". In the first case one tries to limit it, the second case, not so much.



Here you did that attempt. In your first post however, not so much. This is merely what I criticized.



Equal ? Hardly, or hard to tell. If that was measured only through the threat a power poses to its neighbors, that would be too easy.

Small tragedies ? Like the attack on Caldari Prime ? And here we only talk about the military threat. What about the economic one ? What about the practical bloc ? People seem to like telling that the Caldari State is not expansionnist. This is only half true. The Caldari State is composed of two out of three power blocs that believe in the interaction with outsiders. And one of these two strongly believe that any exhange has to be to the benefit of one and at the expense of the other.

Small tragedies, hardly.

Yes, you are wrong. Theology is dependent upon critical thinking. Blind acceptance serves no one, least of all the blind. A faith unchallenged is useless. It is ultimately important to challenge one's faith, it brings one closer to the purity of that faith.

The essence of faith is knowing that when you reach the point where you don't have the answers, you rely upon what revelations you do have and accept that which you do not understand in light of that which you do. Can I explain why every negative thing happens in this cluster? No. Do I accept that they do happen and challenge my understanding of God and how these negative things correlate to his sovereignty? Yes. When I reach the point where I cannot understand why God would allow something to happen, I accept on faith that God would not allow them to happen without a purpose or in opposition to his character. That is faith, but it is not faith absent critical thinking.

The aspects of creation I cannot explain are attributed to the magnificence of the creator. In faith I accept that all things have a purpose even if I fail to understand that purpose. Do I question how something fits in to the universe or what role a particular creation plays in the greater whole? Absolutely. When I cannot find the answers with my limited knowledge and resources, I accept on faith that God's understanding is beyond mine and there must be a place and purpose even if I cannot see it.

Continually challenging what we know and do not know is what leads to revelations of truth, discoveries of science and growth of character and knowledge. Faith is not absent critical thinking, it simply changes the foundation of absolute truth from ourselves to God.



Our culture and faith are a threat only because you do not fully understand them (though it is obvious that you think you do.) You value what you consider "free thought" and, as stated, doubt that anyone in the faith ever engages in it. I am simply telling you that you are fundamentally wrong. The Scriptures advise us to be careful and watchful of free thought, not to abstain from it. The point being that we must weigh all things in consideration to the greater truth that we know, understanding that our own knowledge and resources are limited.

You are correct in that we pose a direct threat to your philosophy, your faith, but not your people.



I do not ask that you hide your views, I ask that you abstain from broad judgments of ignorance. To claim that an entire people lack the ability to think critically is a revelation of your own prejudice, not anything resembling truth.

EDIT: I am not upset, I am merely taking issue with your wording and sentiment. Which, I believe, was the point of all of this.