>>> Continued from previous message
correctness is an authoritarian concept, a new set of
rules and requirements to replace the old. What Star
Trek shows is gnostic respect for alternate viewpoints
and practices, stemming necessarily from the belief
that no one individual is more qualified to figure
things out than another. Kirk is often criticized for
disobeying orders and getting away with it, but in a
gnostic society it would be considered a crime to
follow the orders of an authority contrary to what one
believed was the right thing to do. I believe Kirk
gets away with it because his superiors recognize
this, as they are products of a gnostic society too.
For them, personal experience and character are to be
relied on more than external rules in the face of the
unknown and the strange. Finally, the Prime Directive,
which I've heard called immoral and senseless many
times, is in the end a perfect expression of gnostic
values. A gnostic society would not assume its values
were superior to another's even if it had more
advanced technology or knowledge, and would not
destroy the integrity of another culture even to help.
Instead it would try to learn, and interfering in a
developing culture would make it impossible for that
culture to come up with unique, unbiased ways of
discovering new truths- and this would be the greatest
loss conceivable to gnostics. So the Prime Directive
is established to ensure future access to revelation,
so the Buddhas, Christs, and Suraks of other worlds
can arise freely.
        When Picard, in "Measure of a Man," argued that
Data must have the freedom to discover for himself
whether or not he has a soul, he perfectly summed up
the gnostic philosophy, and its motivating
consequences in the universe of Star Trek. The fact
that he won the decision in court over a precedent set
in the 21st Century is my best argument that my point
is valid.
        Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations: The
glory of creation lies in its infinite diversity, and
in the ways our differences combine to create meaning
and beauty.
        These themes are Star Trek for me, and a good story
is one that explores one or more of them. Each one
sets the stage for debate on how to improve the
circumstances of human existence. This debate to me is
what makes Star Trek unique. None of these themes
depends on high technology or a future setting, and a
Star Trek story need not take place there; I'd like to
see one set in the present day. There's a good one
waiting to be written about UN soldiers in Bosnia, I
think. Every time I see those white painted UN
personnel carriers on the news, I can't help but think
of them as the precursors of starships. All those
people who dress up in Starfleet uniforms and dream of
living in the world of Star Trek, it's not a matter of
inventing warp drives or phasers and it's not
necessarily far in the future. It's a matter of
critically examining what it's going to take to make
human life richer, more spiritual, and more
meaningful. This, in my opinion, is what all Star Trek
fiction should be about, and to the extent that these
grounds for debate are left behind, Star Trek will
lose its uniqueness and eventually evaporate.
        "A man either lives his life as it happens to him;
meets it head on and licks it, or he begins to wither
away and die" -Dr. Phillip Boyce, *The Cage*
-End-
*Posted* But not *Written* by
Jay P. Hailey 
Chief Editor
THE UNIVERSE: TREK
 * OLX 2.1 TD * "It never happened!" - Yar
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------