top of page
Search

Pneuma: Regarding science and mysticism

(2/10)



In Teenage Wasteland I talk about the rebellion of youth, which gives me the courage to walk on roads less traveled on. Sound a bit pretentious, and it probably is, but I want to give you some perspective on how a man can be motivated, while their soul wants one thing, but their reason tells them another.


The Ultimate Deal in its essence is a science fiction novel. You could call it a soft sci-fi novel because it does not go deep into the implemented technologies of the future. The Ultimate Deal focuses on the tendencies, which I observed in contemporary society, compared to past tendencies, and tried to extrapolate to the human side of the future.


I figured that's how I can guess more.


I did study enough science at the University of Glasgow with my Genetics degree to realize that I am not the person who could predict super predictive technologies. If I could do that, I would be working at CERN, not writing soft sci-fi novels. That is why The Ultimate Deal is set in the near future of the 21st century.


I secretly hope to live to all the years in the book, to see if some of my predictions come true. Up to the point of the paperback publication, two already came true.


The Ultimate Deal is influenced not only by my degree, by scientific papers, but also by the science fiction novels of Asimov, Vonnegut, Arthur C. Clarke, Margaret Atwood, Frank Herbert, Iain Banks, Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Hannu Rajaniemi, and my favorite book, which I consider sci-fi: 1984 by George Orwell.


Besides science fiction and fantasy, The Ultimate Deal also borrows from some mystical universes: that of Christianity and the Bible, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita, and other polytheistic mythologies like the Greek, the Scandinavian, the Indian, and so on.


In my attempt to make The Ultimate Deal, a unique and unifying book, I also sourced other types of literature: classical, less known, etc. I haven't emulated anything specific, but there is no chance of hell I haven't been influenced by the books I've read.


There's probably something from the first book I've read: the Bulgarian children's book The Insatiable Teddy-Bear.


In any case, my brain is torn between the replicable and incredibly useful essence of standardized science and the infinite mystery of the Universe. And perhaps of the wrong question "Why does the human exist?"


It is clear that science is better at answering questions like "How can achieve this?". We live in a century where people live the longest, while diseases are something that can be treated, and hopefully soon (despite anti-scientific sentiments) eradicated. Hopefully, eradication of diseases will happen across all classes.


The scientific method is especially good at solving short and clearly defined problems.


But I disagree that human existence needs to be degraded to the hitpoints, measured through years or health. I do believe in the human spirit and free will.


Even if we remove beliefs from the equation, what point is there to extend the life of an evolved creature, if it can never find its purpose? If it can never maximize its benefit to itself and the Universe?


Man should not forget that their vanity to pretend to be a demigod and meaning generator is exactly the reason people are now enlightened and technologically advanced. That is why we shouldn't rely neither only on science, nor only on religion. In the first case, we only see the trees; in the second, only the woods.


That was a thing I tried to unify in The Ultimate Deal. Whether I've done that, it's up to you, the reader to say. The most important thing for me is that I am opening a discussion.


In science the first thing you need to do is ask the Research Question



Comments

bottom of page