Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Thursday, 11 October 2007

Some people are apparently a little confused about how I can reconcile my love for Daniel Jackson, and my loathing for Eric von Daniken.

Well, it's easy.

Eric von Daniken lives in THIS world, where the pyrmids were build by extraordinary human effort using advanced, but still ancient and very human, ingenuity, math, technology and skills.  All of which we can abundantly demonstrate that the humans of that time had.  Nevertheless, he believes that alien astronauts came to our planet and assembled the wonders of the ancient world with the magic laser beams.  Despite the inability to support these claims with equally extraordinary proof, he continues to promote his ideas as though they are established fact.


Daniel Jackson lives in a fictional world where the pyramids were ACTUALLY BUILT by extraordinary human effort using advanced ingenuity, math, technology and skills which were given them by ancient astronauts posing as gods in order to obtain hosts for their parasitic selves, as well as intelligent, adaptable and fast-breeding slave armies.  Unlike Daniken, when Dr. Jackson went looking for the alien astronauts, HE FOUND THEM.  Then, they pissed him off, and he tweaked their noses, kicked the asses, rolled them in tar and feathers, and kicked them out of his galaxy...with his brain.  He hardly had to flex those nicely proportional arm muscles at all.


Also, Eric von Daniken is a paunchy, dusty old crank who is technically old enough to be either my father or my grandfather, and he spouts enough unsupportable superstitious B.S. to be my pastor.  Anyone creeped out yet?


Daniel, though fictional, is only two years older than me (born THE DAY BEFORE ROCKY), is adorable, and works out on a regular basis.


So, there you have it.  Happy now?

Thursday, 11 October 2007 09:28:48 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [11] |  |  | #
Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:30:34 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
ummm... I always worry when people (e.g. your "critics") confuse Fiction (like Stargate) with crackpots like Mr. Daniken.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:55:38 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Don't worry, my "critics" are friends who are just giving me a hard time. I have a friend who is greatly bothered by my great confidence in my world-view (ie. my "judgementalism") so she likes to try to ferret out things she percieves as inconsistancies and show me that I can be mistaken.

The fact that I can enjoy a fictional representation of something that really bothers me in real life seems inconsistant to her.

Actually, I have several friends like that, but one in particular is pretty persistant.

She recognizes the difference between fiction and reality. She just doesn't understand how I can like and be a fan of a fictional representation of something that actually pisses me off in real life, and thinks I'm a little hypocritical because of it.

If I can enjoy fictional Daniel, why can't I be amused by the real Mr. Daniken?
If the real Mr. Daniken pisses me off, how come the fictional Daniel doesn't irritate me?

My answer is simply that as long as Stargate admits it's fiction, and doesn't start claiming to be a documentary, I'm cool.

Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:14:25 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
ah I thought it was Daniel's abs helped lend a certain... veracity to his claims. :-)

Seriously though, thanks for explaining. Still seems odd, but I have also encountered people who beileve one's real world beliefs must therefore filter/limit what fiction one will read.

Oh well... Back to my B5 DVDs, err I mean work. :-)

Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:23:59 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Given the new information about the possibility of <a href=";org=NSF" target="_blank">the Pyramids made out of an early form of concrete</a> (enabling each block to be created in place - found by ceramics professor Michel Barsoum), the "alien astronaut" theory becomes more and more wild.

It's reasonable for a fiction story, but not even realistic for a documentary.

Even the concept of the giant chalk figures being meant for ancient "alien astronauts" is far-fetched (and I'm of a more mystical bent). Please, if the figures are meant to be "seen from the sky" wouldn't it make more sense that they were created to please the Gods of the cultures that created them?? Why do we have to bring aliens into it?
Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:32:59 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Actually, I find his big baby blues much more convincing. His abs lack the clarity and logic that his fetching way with a pained grimace or nicely structured biceps have.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can resist a physically fit, ethically exact, academically accomplished nerd.

What B5 DVD are you not watching as you slave away earning every penny of your wage and more? Personally, I just finished steam-cleaning the carpet in the library and was going to settle down to fold a pile of laundry in front of the Heros season one that Rocky got me for my birthday.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 11:50:58 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Sadly I'm actually working... just happen to be coding in the basement today. So no B5, just tempataion on the other side of the room. Probably wathc some this weekend as I haven't watched it in a while. That or we'll finally start season three Dr. Who.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:27:13 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Something I always adored about Stargate SG-1 - and have noted elsewhere - was its broad anti-theist subtext. They made much of the Gou'a'ld (and later the Ori) being "false gods" and it being necessary to resist them. But between those two and many other advanced alien civilizations (the Asgard, the Ancients/Ascended, etc.) who arguably took on a god-like role toward various less civilizations, there was never a hint of acknowledgement of a "true" God or gods. Not once. The clear message was "All gods are false gods." And the series lived that message for ten years straight.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:28:24 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Oops. "less" above should be "less technologically advanced". Sorry.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:38:25 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Thanks a lot for the link. It looks interesting. I just skimmed it. Will go back for a closer look later.


I always felt that the message of the series WRT to the supernatural was "wait and see. when you've seen, you know, don't cling to disproven ideas." Which is a little different than denying all Gods, or the possibility of Gods. O'Neil hinted a few times that he believed in a God, but didn't elaborate. Sam expressed a longing for God when faced with death, and Mitchell urged her to have the only kind of faith that makes sense...whatever faith you can find without grasping for it in defiance of that enables you to accept what is, and doesn't demand that you believe what cannot be true.
Thursday, 11 October 2007 14:43:01 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I remember that exchange between Mitchell and Sam at the end; I think it (kind of) reinforces my take on the series. As far as O'Neill, I don't recall anything like that from him (though I'm not saying that I doubt your recollection) but since it didn't ping my radar it must not have been anything substantial enough to constitute a part of the series' ethos.
Monday, 15 October 2007 11:07:51 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Another note - you write: "Unlike Daniken, when Dr. Jackson went looking for the alien astronauts, HE FOUND THEM."

A more accurate distinction would be - Daniken went looking for alien astronauts, but only in a second- and third-hand way and found nothing, so he had to make shit up. Dr. Jackson was NOT looking for alien astronauts; he was looking first-hand for answers to questions he had about the age of certain ancient artifacts in Egypt and the apparently pre-Egyptian civilization that must have constructed them... and what he found, to his astonishment, was alien astronauts.

It's an important distinction, because it illustrates the profound differences between actual scientific investigation and pseudoscience; i.e, Charles Darwin didn't just wake up one morning and announce "Today I will discover that natural selection is the mechanism chiefly responsible for evolution", instead he made observations and collected information, and when he had a body of work sufficiently detailed and cohesive that the data *told him something*, he published his conclusions.

THAT'S how science works, and that's what the fringe conspiracy nuts and denialists never manage to grasp. And Stargate SG-1 consistently articulated that distinction, and that's the chief reason I hold it in such high regard.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: