Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Ah, so we see that Le Guin is not as enamoured with communism as might have been deduced from earlier chapters.

We start to see some of the 'dark side' of bureaucratic-type government; corruption.

We also see something that seems to be quite typical of political systems that are intolerant of opposing ideologies: secret police and a system that is run via a secret, under-the-surface reign of terror.

In addition, we are introduced into the religions of Karhide and Orgoreyn in more depth.

I found what Le Guin says about both censorship and religion, quite interesting:
To oppose something is to maintain it.
and
To be an atheist is to maintain God.

Nice to see that my terse remarks (I'm a bit short of time these days, and was going to fill out this thread a bit before officially posting, so thanks for saving me some of the work, Ian) have at least sparked more debate than we've had over Le Guin's take on human perception of reality that I tried to get going in thread 2... :D (The discussion that Ai has with Faxe, of the Foretellers)

Just a few short few comments before I have to run again:

How would you define "censorship" in its wide sense, as in the activity of banning books and music, the association of persons, and the worship of anything?

Would you agree that it is usually sparked by some ideology that is intolerant of opposition?
For instance, saying that you oppose something because they are trivial, vulgar, and blasphemous, is a moral judgement, a value judgement, therefore, an ideological judgment as opposed to an empirical one, yes?

So, I suggest what Le Guin is getting at, is that in trying to supress things, you are giving the attention, you are validating them, even if it is in a negative sense - aren't you even more curious about a book that has been banned?

..and as for banning things like prosititution and the consumption of alcohol, we know how far the US governement got with stamping out the use of liqour and the practice of prostition, eh? Let's not even mention the use of other drugs that are supposedly "illegal".

Re the atheism/religion thing: I'm glad we're discussing this, Ian, bc this is at the root of a discussion that comes a long road here on GR, and part of something that I have been trying to explain to a few people regarding what the difference between your atheism and my nontheist agnostic humanism is.

I suspect that what Le Guin is saying, is that in denying God to a theist, to a 'believer' we have to state our belief in something as well, we have to state that we disbelieve the possibility that there may be a God/gods.

I read Le Guin as saying, that with that, we are still speaking the language of the believer. Atehism and thesim is simply like two opposite sides of a coin. On the one side is belief in a god, and on the other side is disbelief in a god. So, an atheist still arguing on the same terms as the believer, and thereby we are not set free from the constraints of these ontological or religious questions.

We need to step away from the 'belief' paradigm to be free from the language of religion, to be unengaged from the language of religion; to step away from the area of value judgments into the area of objectivity, or empirical judgment. ..but once we do the latter, there can be no "belief" anymore, because there can be no objective "proof".


More later, I have to run, but I'd be glad if this turns into a discussion. :)

Ian wrote: "Wow, there is some fantastic stuff to respond to here. It's Friday night here and we have just started the second series of game of Thrones. I'll try to come back when the violence ends."

Yes, I'm also popping in when I can inbetween RL stuff. Btw, Series two of GOT is still fine. But just wait til you hit season 3... :(

Haven't been able to get past season 1 #3...

Ian wrote: " If an Atheist holds it as a fact that God doesn't exist, then it implicitly confronts a Theist with an assertion that their religion is erroneous (and vice versa).."

Um, won't you do me a favor and do that for me? I'd honestly be much obliged if you can prove empirically that God does not exist. I'd love to see the proof. I was not aware that there was any, but I'm very eager to see some.

Ian wrote: "My Atheism states that, in terms of things I believe as facts, God does not exist, for me. Unlike other Atheists, I am prepared to believe that if you believe that God exists, then that is a fact f..."

Check the difference between an empirical claim and a value claim, please, Ian.

I think I agree with Ian - I'm not sure what difference it makes whether God's existence (or not) is empirically defined or a value judgement. That is, if either side could empirically prove their point, the other side would claim faulty science. So yes, if either side "holds as fact" their position, it confronts their opposition with an implicit attack. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what Le Guin is saying.

In any case, Atheism - as any honest atheist will tell you - _is_ a statement of belief. God's non-existence would be far harder to prove than her existence. The only place (I think) I disagree with Ian is "If you are an Agnostic and don't know, then that is a fact and a belief for you as well." It's only a fact that you believe you don't know - it's no statement whatsoever about the existence of God. But then, maybe that's exactly what he meant.

Traveller wrote: " Um, won't you do me a favor and do that for me? I'd honestly be much obliged if you can prove empirically that God does not exist. I'd love to see the proof. I was not aware that there was any, but I'm very eager to see some. ..."

But you can't PROVE a negative.

Good question, Ian, "What is 'free'?" Free of the ever circling controversy I would imagine though I also suspect that it is more complicated than that. 'Agnostic' probably wouldn't quite solve it either. Is there a word for not caring whether God exists or not (perhaps I shouldn't have capitalized)?


Opps, as all can see, I popped in before I realized how far the discussion went after Ian's question.

Cecily wrote: "But you can't PROVE a negative. ..."

Thank you, Cecily and Derek. That is my entire point. [EDIT: Although one can of course, prove a negative; it is non-existence that one cannot prove... but you are close to enough to what I was trying to say, Cecily!]

At least someone around here who knows the scientific method! One can theoretically prove the existence of something, but non-existence is unprovable, and therefore all the waffling around the point is empty gas. One can prove absence, but not non-existence, unless you can be present everywhere at once, which we limited human beings can of course not do.

Back to my original point: Le Guin is saying that if you try to disprove the existence of God, you must by necessity still be doing it in the language of religion and of faith; you must still be using the same criteria that the religious use.

Ian wrote: "I was trying to accord Agnosticism equal merit as a factual or belief system to that accorded to Theism or Atheism, rather than suggest that it is sitting on the fence or the failure to make up your mind. It is a valid subjective position to assume. It is not the failure to assume a position. "

The whole point is that it IS "sitting on the fence or the failure to make up your mind", because one refuses to "make up your mind" about something that does not have proof going for it one either side. It's like saying I've made up my mind that your first grandchild will be a boy with green eyes and brown hair.

If you really want to try and force it into the mold of "a belief system", then, as a belief system, its belief would be not to believe, simply because you don't want to believe something that you cannot know. Its belief is that it doesn't believe in belief.

I suspect this is a concept difficult to grasp for a very concrete, practical type of mind, which cannot handle uncertainty and needs everything to be stacked into neat pigeonholes.

Perhaps Le Guin realises this, and might be why her statements appear paradoxical to some.

When I call myself a sceptical agnostic, it is with emphasis on the 'sceptical', and on the idea that 'gnosis' mean 'knowledge' and therefore a-gnosis would mean non-knowledge. So a sceptic says : I cannot know until it is proven, and until it is proven I prefer to leave the possibility as an open question. I choose to not believe either the pro or the con until that situation has eventuated.

To me, this is what Le Guin is also saying. Theists and atheists deal in "belief". While you argue with a believer on either side, you are dealing with arguments that are unobjective, what we call "value judgements".

You need to move completely away from the "I believe it exists vs I believe it does not exist" mindset, and only once you have moved away from that kind of thinking can you open the way for either mysticism or true scepticism.

Therefore she says: To be an atheist is to maintain God. His existence or his nonexistence, it amounts to much the same, on the plane of proof. Thus proof is a word not often used among the Handdarata, who have chosen not to treat God as a fact, subject either to proof or to belief: and they have broken the circle, and go free. To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them: this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness.

Ursula Le Guin . The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 1929-1933). Kindle Edition.

Just read those passages carefully. :)

Ruth wrote: "Good question, Ian, "What is 'free'?" Free of the ever circling controversy I would imagine though I also suspect that it is more complicated than that. 'Agnostic' probably wouldn't quite solve i..."

That is a very good point, thank you for that, Ruth! Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Argueing about the existence of a god or not, in the terms Le Guin uses there, means you care whether it is true or not. "Not caring" and going free, is what I think she means also with :
"To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here "all roads lead to Mishnory." To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk a different road.

Ursula Le Guin . The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 1923-1926). Kindle Edition.

Opposition means that you care about the issue, wether pro or contra. Walking a different road altogether, as she puts it, and "being free" means that you don't care, you don't have emotions involved in wanting it to be there or not.

Derek wrote: "In any case, Atheism - as any honest atheist will tell you - _is_ a statement of belief. God's non-existence would be far harder to prove than her existence. The only place (I think) I disagree with Ian is "If you are an Agnostic and don't know, then that is a fact and a belief for you as well." It's only a fact that you believe you don't know - it's no statement whatsoever about the existence of God."

That co-incides 100% with my own stance, yes. Exactly. Plus what you said above. Like I had said in post 4...

Ian wrote: "I've got a netball weekend and interstate travel this week. You might have to carry on without me for a while.

I think Le Guin was opening up scope for different "ways of seeing" as a positive spi..."

Ah yes, I see that you are in this post, #9 in fact affirming exactly what I said in my post above that.

So, we are in agreement then? Do you see that I said the same thing about this?

I'm not too sure what you meant by your comment : "While I'm happy to discuss censorship eventually, I think that focus perpetuates the differences and highlights the negative that she might have been trying to get away from."
The context is this:
"We must halt this rivalry with Karhide before the New Men come," he says. "We must cleanse our spirits for their coming. We must forego shifgrethor, forbid all acts of vengeance, and unite together without envy as brothers of one Hearth." But how, until they come? How to break the circle? Guyrny Susmy. Slose heads a committee that purposes to suppress the obscene plays performed in public kemmerhouses here; they must be like the Karhidish huhuth. Slose opposes them because they are trivial, vulgar, and blasphemous. To oppose something is to maintain it.

Ursula Le Guin The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 1919-1923). Kindle Edition.

It starts with intended censorship and suppresion, and leads on to religion.

Just a small note about the threads. In order to start a new thread, one needs to post some text into the box to make the thread 'take'. Sometimes when I am still typing in the box, a RL interruption will come along and I have to post whatever I have at that point, in order not to have to start all over again.

I know this is irritating for you guys, but this was an impromptu read and my exams are upon me, and everyone else was also too busy to lead this read -- so apologies, and please bear with the circumstances if you can... My next read will be much better organized, I assure you, though I can't vouch for any of the other discussion leaders. :)

Ian wrote: "Traveller wrote: "You need to move completely away from the "I believe it exists vs I believe it does not exist" mindset, and only once you have moved away from that kind of thinking can you open t..."
I think what possibly happened here, Ian, is that when I started the thread, I didn't think anybody would see it yet, bc, I specifically didn't link it to the schedule. (I haven't even done that yet, as we speak!) I had also not reckoned with alert Aussies and down-under time. So, I think you had started posting while I was still working on the thread, and perhaps, due to the timing of posting threads, had misunderstood, because you sort of.. well, I was still talking actually.. and then, I suppose you would post something while I was still typing, and I would post something while you were typing, and I have to be away for sudden periods of time, and so on.

I think the best thing would be for you to read with my post 4 and see if you agree with that, bc we all seem to be posting the same thing and repeating as if we disagree, while I suspect we are actually agreeing... (in many respects, at any rate, if not all respects)

This is all excepting the fact though that I know from previous experience that you used to disagree with my brand of skepticism, Ian. I thought what Le Guin said here nicely illustrates that, though, so can I assume now from what was said here, that you accept my "non-belief"?

The bottom line is that there is a point we can agree on: Neither of us positively believe in the existence of dieties. The difference is, that you aver that this is a "fact". I don't see this non-belief as a fact. And additionally, belief in the non-existence of a diety is not a belief for me either, as it is for you.

I am prepared to respect your position, but I also need you to respect mine.

Ian wrote: "In other words, I don't want to be evangelical about the issue.

I would rather work in the realm of morality, without any preconception that a belief in God is a prerequisite for morality. "

I can agree with that, at the very least!

Ian wrote: "So on my interpretation, you also move away from scepticism."

In a strange way, scepticism and mysticism are sort of opposite sides of the coin, I'd say. Mysticism usually relies on some sort of "experience" though, and is usually not concerned with the doctrine, with the rational , intellectual trappings of whatever they believe.

It's almost as hard to pin down as its opposite: Definition of mysticism
noun

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender: St Theresa’s writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism

2. vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult: there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the show’s title. Oxford dictionary .

The cult that Estraven was trained in, seems to be mystical, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, back to our shifgrethor discussion on the previous thread:

A big Orgota foray yesterday across the Ey; they burned the granaries of Tekember. Precisely what the Sarf wants, and what Tibe wants. But where does it end? Slose, having turned his Yomesh mysticism onto

the Envoy's statements, interprets the coming of the Ekumen to earth as the coming of the Reign of Meshe among men, and loses sight of our purpose. "We must halt this rivalry with Karhide before the New Men come," he says. "We must cleanse our spirits for their coming. We must forego shifgrethor, forbid all acts of vengeance, and unite together without envy as brothers of one Hearth." But how, until they come? How to break the circle?

Ursula Le Guin The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 1916-1918). Kindle Edition.

These are the Orgotan officials discussing policy. Note that it is suggested that they forgeo shifgrethor as a sacrifice.

Ian said (I can't quite work out how to do this with italics): "Free of the God Argument/Controversy, for me at least, means we are free to work out how to live life, how to be good and how to deal with each other in a personal and social situation."

Exactly what it means for me. Nice to have it thought out for me as I have never before tried to put it in words.

I think you said it very nicely yourself in post 21, Ruth. ;)

Italics, bolding and underlining work like this:

Italics [i] blah blah (the text you want italicised here) [/i]

Bold [b] blah blah [/b]

Underlining: [u] blah blah [/u]

However, instead of using a bracket like this [ and this], you should use brackets like this < and this >.
:)

So it will look like this using the <> brackets:
Italics blah blah
Bold blah blah
blah blah Strikethrough is an 's'. [s] text[/s]

Ian wrote: "I definitely agree that the Gethenian religion is a form of mysticism.

Shifgrethor seems to work at a personal and a patriotic/national level where self-esteem, pride and face are all vital to the..."

True, true, I agree with all you say there...or actually not with all. I don't think they see it as 'dirty'.
I did want to note that this was said in Orgoreyn, though, so, Orgoreyn, in other words, also plays shifgrethor.

I think many species of animal play this game. Take canines for instances, and many species of primates. The dominant one will stare the more submissive ones down, and the latter will often lie down in a token of submission;- all without any actual blood being spilt.

Later in the book, when Ai and Estraven travel through the frozen wastes, Estraven mentions that for him, it is the Gethenian equivalent of Ai's "masculine pride".

Thanks everyone, I'll be brave and experiment now that is what I'm doing (don't want to offend anyone).

It should be fun!

Ruth wrote: "Thanks everyone, I'll be brave and experiment now that is what I'm doing (don't want to offend anyone).

It should be fun!"

Ruth, there is a little "preview" link next to the post button. Don't worry about it looking greyed out, you can still click on it and see if your experimentations in text formatting worked, before actually posting.

Cool, I wondered what that was but didn't want to click on something randomly, you know what that can do. :)

Yes! But this one is safe. :D

On Ian's review, Traveller wrote: "Every person has the organs for both sexes.To an extent, one can choose which role you're going to play, and of course, the role of female is often chosen, so that the person can bear children. But since partners are freely chosen, one can choose if you want to function at being girl or boy by choosing someone who prefers the opposite gender", which I thought it was worth discussing it here.

I don't think it's explicitly stated that everyone has both sets of organs, though biologically it makes sense. It is stated that they don't have external organs (no breasts, testes, penis) except in kemmer.

I certainly didn't get the sense that anybody gets to choose their role, except those who use drugs - which is considered perverse in Karhide. I'm also not so sure that partners are freely chosen. Two people near each other while both in kemmer will assume opposite roles - and when Estraven uses his discipline to prevent the change, the Sarf agent, Gaum - who was presumed to have used drugs to both force kemmer and her sex - is left seriously sexually frustrated.

Derek wrote: "On Ian's review, Traveller wrote: "Every person has the organs for both sexes.To an extent, one can choose which role you're going to play, and of course, the role of female is often chosen, so tha..."

Yes, it is strongly implied that the Sarf agent used drugs to induce kemmer, which is also, of course, done by the group of Foretellers that we meet in chapter 5.

Partners freely chosen because they do not have a system of "forced marraiges". They can choose who they want to be kemmerlings with.

I'll do some searches on my Kindle version and post some quotes for you, Derek! Also re the sex organs. Coming up shortly...

Part of the fact that they can freely choose partners, is demonstrated by the partial taboo on allowing siblings to become life partners:

Shath in the Pering Storm-border there were two brothers who vowed kemmering to each other. In those days, as now, full brothers were permitted to keep kemmer until one of them should bear a child, but after that they must separate; so it was never permitted them to vow kemmering for life. Yet this they had done. When a child was conceived the Lord of Shath commanded them to break their vow and never meet in kemmer again.

Ursula Le Guin The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 362-365). Kindle Edition.

Okay, here is how their procreation works: (see chapter 7):
For 21 or 22 days the individual is somer, sexually inactive, latent. On about the 18th day hormonal changes are initiated by the pituitary control and on the 22nd or 23rd day the individual enters kemmer, estrus. In this first phase of kemmer (Karh. secher) he remains completely androgynous. Gender, and potency, are not attained in isolation. A Gethenian in first-phase kemmer, if kept alone or with others not in kemmer, remains incapable of coitus. Yet the sexual impulse is tremendously strong in this phase, controlling the entire personality, subjecting all other drives to its imperative. When the individual finds a partner in kemmer, hormonal secretion is further stimulated (most importantly by touch-secretion? scent?) until in one partner either a male or female hormonal dominance is established. The genitals engorge or shrink accordingly, foreplay intensifies, and the partner, triggered by the change, takes on the other sexual role (? without exception? If there are exceptions, resulting in kemmer-partners of the same sex, they are so rare as to be ignored). This second phase of kemmer (Karh. thorharmen), the mutual process of establishing sexuality and potency, apparently occurs within a time-span of two to twenty hours. If one of the partners is already in full kemmer, the phase for the newer partner is liable to be quite short; if the two are entering kemmer together, it is likely to take longer. Normal individuals have no predisposition to either sexual role in kemmer; they do not know whether they will be the male or the female, and have no choice in the matter. (Otie Nim wrote that in the Orgoreyn region the use of hormone derivatives to establish a preferred sexuality is quite common; I haven't seen this done in rural Karhide.) Once the sex is determined it cannot change during the kemmer-period. The culminant phase of kemmer (Karh. thokemmer) lasts from two to five days, during which sexual drive and capacity are at maximum. It ends fairly abruptly, and if conception has not taken place, the individual returns to the somer phase within a few hours (note: Otie Nim thinks this "fourth phase" is the equivalent of the menstrual cycle) and the cycle begins anew. If the individual was in the female role and was impregnated, hormonal activity of course continues, and for the 8.4-month gestation period and the 6- to 8-month lactation period this individual remains female. The male sexual organs remain retracted (as they are in somer), the breasts enlarge somewhat, and the pelvic girdle widens. With the cessation of lactation the female re-enters somer and becomes once more a perfect androgyne.

Ursula Le Guin . The Left Hand of Darkness (Kindle Locations 1181-1186). Kindle Edition.

I've bolded the relevant bits. Although they cannot choose their resulting gender unaided, they can do it with the use of hormones. Also note, that the the penis is "retracted" when not in kemmer, so it basically works much like that of cats, by the sounds of things.
..and the breasts engorge only when necessary, like that of most non-human mammals.

I have also wondered exactly how the mechanism works that makes the one turn into a male and the other a female, though I suspect it would be similar to how pheromones work.

My biggest question would have been: what if an individual wanted to be a female but turned into a male every time? -- but of course she answers that with the hormonal induction option, as of course also the total suppression of kemmer that is possible like they do in the prisons.

The biggest question for me about these androgynes, is what is their chromosomal code? Are they XX or XY or XXY? or XYY..or something totally different..?

Traveller wrote: "Cecily wrote: "But you can't PROVE a negative. ..."

Thank you. That is my entire point. At least someone around here who knows the scientific method! "

Oh, please. There's no need to say things like that. I'm sure we ALL understand the scientific method. Nothing Ian said even hinted at having a "proof" of the non-existence of God. I'm pretty sure that we're all in agreement on the major details here, but for some reason you are trying to make it confrontational: which sounds suspiciously like what Le Guin was saying with "To oppose something is to maintain it."

Derek wrote: "Nothing Ian said even hinted at having a "proof" of the non-existence of God..."

Derek, bc I know this is a flammable subject, I didn't start with a discussion of religion. Ian did. I actually initally tried to steer it away from the subject. I just mentioned it very briefly in passing. But, since you ask:

Ian said: "My Atheism states that, in terms of things I believe as facts, God does not exist, for me. Unlike other Atheists, I am prepared to believe that if you believe that God exists, then that is a fact for you, as well as a belief."
For facts to be true, one needs to be able to prove them. They need to be "provable", to qualify for being a 'fact'.

Derek, why things look so mixed up, is that I was still busy setting up my thread and Ian posted exactly what I was saying, and kept posting as if I wasn't there....
..and I did say that I agreed with what you, Derek, had posted, I apologise if I didn't acknowledge your posts immediately. This thread appears to be a victim of internet timing.

A bit of background: Ian and I have long had disagreement regarding these ontological points, probably for about two years now? A lot of people around GR have been reading books argueing either for or against the existence of dieties, and we have had many discussion on the point.

In these discussions, Ian always attacks my position as 'fence-sitting'.

Ah, I see, Derek, do you think I inferred that you don't know the scientific method? If so, I apologize. Sometimes irony comes across wrong on the internet, as well as the intended direction of a comment.

Remember that we've discussed similar subjects before, so of course I know that you know! That was a sort of ironic exclamation, because I was relieved to see that at least you guys agreed with me. It was not meant to exclude anybody, and least of all meant to infer that you yourself were ignorant of it.

OK, I'll concede I was wrong about the external genitalia, but I don't see your quotes supporting "choosing" of partners at all. The very fact that siblings do, and are permitted in a limited way to, become kemmerlings suggests that it's understood that you don't have a lot of choice in your partners while in kemmer. Gaum thought that Estraven would be unable to resist her.

Normal individuals have no predisposition to either sexual role in kemmer; they do not know whether they will be the male or the female, and have no choice in the matter.

So, no choice. Using drugs to set your preference is possibly common in Orgoreyn (we have no confirmation from Orgonians [? Orgoreynians? Natives?] but the mere fact that an outsider knows about the practice suggests it's true, but "common" doesn't necessarily mean that it's even close to normal usage - it's the opposite of "rare", and it's also low and vulgar; to say something is "common" merely means that at least everybody knows it happens), but not only has it not been seen in Karhide, but the only description of the use of such hormones (by Goss at the Foretelling) calls it perversion: "Some Foretelling groups artifically arouse perversion in a normal person—injecting female or male hormones during the days before a session. It's better to have a natural one." Normally perversion is the use of hormones to keep a person in a specific sex permanently (or the rare case where that happens naturally), but surely that's not the intent when a Foretelling group does it artificially.

Derek wrote: "OK, I'll concede I was wrong about the external genitalia, but I don't see your quotes supporting "choosing" of partners at all. The very fact that siblings do, and are permitted in a limited way t..."

I guess we're simply going to have to agree to disagree on these points. People read a book differently, and I guess that is why discussion of them are so potentially enriching.

Re Gaum and Estraven--to me the point is that Estraven -did- resist her. She acted very much to me like a human femme fatale or Cassanova who simply assumes members of the opposite won't be able to resist them. ...and yet, it is possible, even for us monogendered humans. It is true that the novel implies that the sexual urge becomes pretty much irresistble with Gethenians, very much like when a bitch goes into heat; I suppose it would be an urge like the need to take drugs for a human drug addict; which is why the bit about Estraven being able to resist was rather cool, I thought.

..but that is only once they have entered the kemmer phase. I meant, that they can choose who they want their life "kemmer" or sexual partner to be, much like humans enter marriage.

"Kemmerling" as taken by vow, consistently throughout the book read to me as the equivalent of "marriage partner"; it seems to be something that one can vow by own choice; not something that is externally imposed onto a person.

"Otie Nim wrote that in the Orgoreyn region the use of hormone derivatives to establish a preferred sexuality is quite common; I haven't seen this done in rural Karhide.)" That is just rural and seems to exclude urban Karhide by obvious inference.

Okay, so the word "common" here reads to me as being "often practiced"; not as being "vulgar". I do take your point in that it is not 'natural', but remember that "pervert" and "perversion" to these people do not seem to imply a perjorative. It simply seems to mean "unnatural". (In my reading of the novel, though I do appreciate that your own interpretation is of course, different. )

I agree with you that it is not natural, but I disagree with that it is not possible. It would appear to be possible, as, like I said in my previous post, when for instance a person wanted to have a child but kept turning into the male during kemmer. They could opt to have their "kemmer" as a female via use of drugs if all else failed.

I was glad to see that Ursula le Guin holds a similar stance to mine, regarding "truth" and religion.

The point I've been trying to make all along, is that something like "religion" implicitly points to a need for "belief". It is not something which can be scientifically proven, not as yet, in any case. As Le Guin herself pointed out, once the existence of God/a god/gods is/are scientifically proven, it wouldn't be "religion" anymore, since it would not require "faith", but knowledge.

If I believe anything, which everybody must do out of necessity, it is in uncertainty. I agree with Le Guin on that.

I tried to broach this issue in thread 2.

"The unknown," said Faxe's soft voice in the forest, "the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. No Handdara, no Yomesh, no hearthgods, nothing. But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion� Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable—the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?" "That we shall die." "Yes. There's really only one question that can be answered, Genry, and we already know the answer. � The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."

Traveller wrote: " I meant, that they can choose who they want their life "kemmer" or sexual partner to be, much like humans enter marriage."

Of course, but that doesn't imply any level of control once kemmer comes upon them. They choose who they want to be with at the time of the change, but it takes someone with the discipline of the Handarrata to resist the change itself. That's entirely why it's acceptable to kemmer (? I think it's a verb...) with a sibling, briefly, because it would be practically impossible to prevent as long as they are adolescent.

'"Otie Nim wrote that in the Orgoreyn region the use of hormone derivatives to establish a preferred sexuality is quite common; I haven't seen this done in rural Karhide.)" That is just rural and seems to exclude urban Karhide by obvious inference.'

Yes, but you and I take a completely different inference. I believe he says he hasn't seen it done in rural Karhide because it's common in rural Orgoreyn. It's definitely not done in urban Karhide. And you seem to be taking my reference to vulgar as it's more usual modern usage - tending towards obscene - which is not the sense in which common=vulgar.

I also don't agree that "pervert" is not pejorative. "They are not excluded from society, but they are tolerated with some disdain, as homosexuals are in many bisexual societies. The Karhidish slang for them is halfdeads." That seems pejorative to me.

On Atheism and Agnosticism (which is a subject I would only even get involved in because Le Guin brought it up):

"I probably overreacted a bit, because I don't appreciate when people try to push me into a preconceived pigeonhole and try to label me with descriptions that suit them. I reacted purely against the attempt to try and define me and what I believe, with labels that I personally disagree with."

And isn't that exactly what Le Guin said that we do?

I don't see that he made any attempt whatsoever to define you - but since he appears to have deleted all his comments in this thread, it seems unlikely that we'll ever know. "in terms of things I believe as facts, God does not exist, for me." That would be more in tune with the scientific method if he'd used the word axiom rather than fact, but it doesn't change the logical truth of the statement, and it would be less oppositional if he'd said "one believes" instead of "you believe" - but I don't know anybody who doesn't make that mistake.

As for "fence-sitting", why would you have a problem with that? Sitting on a fence is an admirable position for anyone who espouses the scientific method. I'm on the same fence, though I sometimes wish the slats weren't so pointed.

Derek, I think that firstly, discussing religion is a potentially inflammatory subject at the best of times. Unfortunately, even more so, it appears, whenever Ian and I try to discuss it...

Also, a group like this is not really the place for people to discuss politics around other GR groups and feuds and so on; I'd really prefer the actual book discussions to remain pleasant and to exclude things that cause discomfort to individual members and to the group in general; also, no personal mudslinging, please people.

There is a "Weird Mess-hall and chit-chat centre thread, where we can air things like personal grievances http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... .

Derek, back to the sex-thing: since I don't want to appear too argumentative--I think there's been enough of that, I'll concede all your points on the sex stuff, with the following proviso's: I agree that "kemmering" as a verb, would appear to be analogous to having sex or, coitus, and that once a Gethenian enters this phase, it is extremely hard for them to abstain from sex, and yet, Estraven abstained in full kemmer towards the end of the book. To re-iterate: what I had meant was, "vowing kemmer" as in vowing partnership to one another, seems to me to be a voluntary thing on Gethen.

..and I am pretty sure that if Gethenians had found not being able to choose a gender a source of stress or distress, we would have heard such from one of the characters. Since it appears that the gender of the first partner to go into kemmer, to a large extent determines the gender that the second partner goes into, I suspect that it sort of alternates between them to their satisfaction, or it would be the cause of much sadness and that would have been part of the story.

..but since it appears that Le Guin ommitted to give us that level of detail, I shall leave it at that...

Traveller wrote: " what I had meant was, "vowing kemmer" as in vowing partnership to one another, seems to me to be a voluntary thing on Gethen."

But how more so than on Earth? In the story of the first Arek and Therem, their relationship is clearly not acceptable to either family. So I don't see how vowing kemmer is different from marriage.

Derek wrote: "So I don't see how vowing kemmer is different from marriage."

Well then it seems we agree, right? Since that's what I also said in my earlier post. :)

Except that it conflicts with the statement you began with "But since partners are freely chosen, one can choose if you want to function at being girl or boy by choosing someone who prefers the opposite gender"

We have no evidence that it is normal, or even common, that people choose their own life-partners, and we do have evidence that in the short term they don't get to choose at all.

Derek wrote: "Except that it conflicts with the statement you began with "But since partners are freely chosen, one can choose if you want to function at being girl or boy by choosing someone who prefers the opp..."

Um, do you mean earthlings or Gethenians? We don't get to choose marriage partners that complement our sexual orientation? Perhaps not, but there is no evidence that Gethenians have the same gender biases that we earthlings have. I suspect that is sort of the point of the book...

..and in the book there is ample evidence of Gethenians "swearing kemmer" based on love, and no evidence of a forced marriage system. If I've perhaps missed such instances, I wonder if you have any references to such instances and which chapters these occur in?

Also, not too sure who you are referring to with this: "... and we do have evidence that in the short term they don't get to choose at all."

Where did sexual orientation come into this? I said that Gethenians simply may not get to choose their life partners, any more than many (possibly the majority) of couples on Earth right now.

What evidence is there that Gethenians get to actually live in kemmer, with the partners of their choice? The examples that come to mind of partners "choosing" resulted in the families repudiating (sometimes fatally) the choice (Getheren and Hode, in chapter 2; Arek & Therem in chapter 9). The only other sworn kemmer relationships I can recall any description of, are between Estraven and Ashe and Herbor and ... Ashe. in the first, while it's clearly Ashe's choice, I don't think it's Estraven's - his choice would have been his forbidden brother. In the second, it's clearly Herbor's choice ("His kemmering by love and vow" - but we know nothing of Ashe's reasons).

So, no, we don't have "ample evidence" of Gethenians being permitted to choose their kemmerings. It may be the norm, but we are not told it is so.

In the "short term", we see that partners unite in kemmer (that is, without the vows) with anyone else who's in kemmer (in both the foretelling, and in the kemmer houses which are only shallowly described - without any obvious choice) and then we have Gaum and Estraven, where Estraven resists because he's an adept of Handarra.

Derek wrote: "Where did sexual orientation come into this? I said that Gethenians simply may not get to choose their life partners, any more than many (possibly the majority) of couples on Earth right now.

What..."

I'm running short of time right now, but will give you my examples to support my own thesis of 'free choice' tomorrow.

Most of he examples you brought up, have to do with incest taboos, and she was comparing them to the incest taboos we earthlings have. I take your point that the 'siblings' rule seems to be to accomodate siblings going into kemmer together, but one would assume that teenage Gethenians would simply be isolated at this time. Remember also, that two people have to be in kemmer at the same time for them to have sexual relations. I do think that there are a few of the details that Le Guin didn't think though carefully enough. If young siblings were allowed to kemmer, them surely many more teenage pregnancies would have taken place than seems to be the norm...- Le Guin does not mention how this is dealt with.

The kemmerhouses were to me the equivalent of brothels. So, inasmuch as an earthling gets to "choose" in a brothel...

Derek wrote: "What evidence is there that Gethenians get to actually live in kemmer, with the partners of their choice? The examples that come to mind of partners "choosing" resulted in the families repudiating (sometimes fatally) the choice (Getheren and Hode, in chapter 2; Arek & Therem in chapter 9).."

For me, the story of the two brothers Getheren and Hod seems to be an exception to the rule that one can choose anybody as your life partner: it seems to be a ban specifically on full siblings. I quote:
"In those days, as now, full brothers were permitted to keep kemmer until one of them should bear a child, but after that they must separate; so it was never permitted them to vow kemmering for life. Yet this they had done."

In the case of Arek and Therem, it seems once again the exception that proves the rule. They were from opposing, feuding clans, like with Romeo and Juliet. they were supposed to be sworn enemies; so get married to one another would be treason towards their clans.
"I have never seen you before," Stokven said. "We are mortal enemies." He rose, and built up the fire in the hearth, and returned to sit by Estraven. "We are mortal enemies," said Estraven. "I would swear kemmering with you." "And I with you," said the other. Then they vowed kemmering to each other, and in Kerm Land then as now that vow of faithfulness is not to be broken, not to be replaced.

This is why he simply had to be killed. The two of them had partnered up for life, and it was something that was untenable for the warring clansmen. Death was the only way to break their vow.

Re LORD BEROSTY REM IR IPE and Ashe: LORD BEROSTY REM IR IPE came to Thangering Fastness and offered forty beryls and half the year's yield from his orchards as the price of a Foretelling, and the price was acceptable.

He set his question to the Weaver Odren, and the question was,On what day shall I die? [.... ]

His kemmering by love and vow was Herbor of the Geganner clan. This Herbor came in the month of Grende to Thangering Fastness and said to the Weaver, "I seek a Foretelling."

This excerpt would indicate to me that people can become kemmerlings with one another simply through love for one another, or, they can "vow" to be kemmering partners for life.

I don't see anything in the book indicating that they are in any way forced into these vows, and it does seem as if they can have sex without being vowed to one another. So, sexual relations seem pretty free, except when you are full siblings or parents with children.


From chapter 7:
Kemmer is not always played by pairs. Pairing seems to be the commonest custom, but in the kemmerhouses of towns and cities groups may form and intercourse take place promiscuously among the males and females of the group. The furthest extreme from this practice is the custom of vowing kemmering (Karh.oskyommer ), which is to all intents and purposes monogamous marriage. It has no legal status, but socially and ethically is an ancient and vigorous institution. The whole structure of the Karhidish Clan-Hearths and Domains is indubitably based upon the institution of monogamous marriage. I am not sure of divorce rules in general; here in Osnoriner there is divorce, but no remarriage after either divorce or the partner's death: one can only vow kemmering once. Descent of course is reckoned, all over Gethen, from the mother, the "parent in the flesh" (Karh.amha ). Incest is permitted, with various restrictions, between siblings, even the full siblings of a vowed-kemmering pair. Siblings are not however allowed to vow kemmering, nor keep kemmering after the birth of a child to one of the pair. Incest between generations is strictly forbidden (in Karhide/Orgoreyn; but is said to be permitted among the tribesmen of Perunter, the Antarctic Continent. This may be slander.).?

Not sure how much clearer I can put my point across than to quote directly from the book...it seems clear to me that people can either choose to have sex promiscuously, even as a sort of group orgy thing, should they so choose, in their brothel equavalents "kemmerhouses", or they can choose to get married. Rather similar to contemporary Western society.