Need Help With Questions Concerning Dune? Ask Here!

[3ngel]

Paul had 2 problems concerning the Golden Path :

The first, he was in the end a coward fearing the worm-transformation most than anything else, even the survaillance of humanity.

The second he was not a fremen (like Leto II was) with a so strong sense of "tribe" (and in a wider way of humanity as a "tribe") that Leto II had.

And finally he hadn't the extra-long visual of the future like Leto II, and so he could not know the worm-transformation was the only way to save the human race.

Infact in the Third book, when Leto II and the blind-Paul met, Leto II explain the farest future, and Paul says : "Oh, i could not look that far...".

In the end, from one point Paul was a coward, from the opposite point, he could not know how important was the choose the golden path.

So in the end, equal points, not guility, nor innocent :)

[Mahdi]

Bah, Paul was no coward.  He saw the path, he saw the possible outcome, he did not reject it because he was afraid.

He rejected it because it was the antithesis of everything he had had drilled into him birth.

He rejected it because it was the exact opposite of his purpose.

The Golden Path was enforced stagnation.

Everything about Paul was anti-stagnation.

His training, military and otherwise) said stagnation was death.

The entire purpose of the Mahdi was to end te stagnate path humanity had fallen into.

It is state dint eh books:  The human genes were becomeing stagnate and needed the wild mingling that only one thign could provide: Jihad.

For Muad'dib, his destiny was to end stagnation.

For Paul, he had been taught, both by teachers and warfare experience, that stagnation was death.

He refused the Golden Path for he did not believe humanity would survive it.

LEto chose the Golden path for he believed humanity would.

Hence the whole "Stagnation!  Death!" arguement when LEto and Paul meet face to face.

[Mahdi]

"But after Leto's enforced stagnation, Krazilec would follow. As Leto II says, Mahdi's jihad would seem a picnic in comparison to it. Did Paul not see it?"

"He refused the Golden Path for he did not believe humanity would survive it."

Leto, on the other hand, thought they would.

[3ngel]

Bah, in the second book the main concept Paul repeat, over and over and over is : "i'm afraid of the terrible scope", "i'm afraid of the terrible end", and i think this is pure cowardy, nothing less. On the other hand i can admit he could not see so far as leto II, and so he believe that Golden path was stagnation without end (he could not see Kralizec).

But for all the rest, he was terrified in the true sense by the trasformation Golden Path would have caused, and so (i can suppose), he did not *voluntary* wanted to see beyond the trasformation, fearing he could find a motivation (and an higher value) that obliged him to stand up and face the "terrible scope".

[Mahdi]

Bah, in the second book the main concept Paul repeat, over and over and over is : "i'm afraid of the terrible scope", "i'm afraid of the terrible end", and i think this is pure cowardy, nothing less. On the other hand i can admit he could not see so far as leto II, and so he believe that Golden path was stagnation without end (he could not see Kralizec).

But for all the rest, he was terrified in the true sense by the trasformation Golden Path would have caused, and so (i can suppose), he did not *voluntary* wanted to see beyond the trasformation, fearing he could find a motivation (and an higher value) that obliged him to stand up and face the "terrible scope".

I disagree.  His "fear" came from the fact that he did not believe it would suceed and must be avoided at all costs.

If you want mroe you should do a search for this topic.

[TMA_1]

yeah I did change my mind about it a bit.

Paul was afraid in some ways as well that he just didnt have what it took to guide mankind along the path. I was too stuck on Paul's fear of sacrifice, living in a half death of hell within each worm after the death of the worm body. It is more than that though. WHat Leto II did was lead mankind upon a razor thin path of hope. The Golden Path was a narrow one, and only a few blunders could have caused mankind to spiral into extinction. I think Paul totally realized this and was so scared of a mistake made.

I just dont think Paul was destined to do it, he was not ready, and he probably was not fully capable. Leto II was, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice.

I think also that when Paul went into the desert, it was his way of trying to help the future of his son's mission. Emotionallyhe didnt want his son to have to go through the hell he would eventually go through, and the touching andsad moment when Paul and Leto II are in thed esert together at the end of Children Of Dune says it all.

Damn I have to read these books again.lol

[Tako]

Paul was afraid to fail. He could see that future but he was also struggling to find a way out of his own universe.

the universe HE had created.

He was afraid to do what Leto II did, he knew that it had to be done, but he was appaled of the idea of opression that he woulkd have to enforce on mankind.

thought:

maybe he saw the future as it happened: Leto becoming the worm-god-emperor. His task in history was to give the universe the son ( that is why he only saw one child? and not two in 'messiah') He saw that the son would follow the golden path, he could not (he knew that) escape his own dexteny or was afraid to trie.

he did state in some form that he was afraid....

[3ngel]

Ok, i forgot that the cause of the "needing" of the Golden Path was produced by the blind and unresponsable actions of Paul himself that looked "too much" into the future without realizing that "looking was making". In the end all the situation was not his fault 'cause he could not know that seeing the future could lead the humanity to extinction.

But even if Paul was not strictly a coward, he was for sure SELFISH because all he was thinking was his own salvation from the worm-trasformation. He didn't think at all about the human destiny.

Infact after he became blind, and went to the desert he shouted "I'm free!!". We can say he TRIED to repair what he had done in his own way (second book), but in the end he realized he could not be done without the worm transformation (EDIT: and even with worm-transform there was no hope), so he simply refused to do it, thinking there was no hope (and only for this reason i can consider it no coward).

But as i've already said earlier, indeed he didnt' see ALL the future so far (as Leto II did), finding the salvation-solution (the golden path). So in the end he's justified.

To conclude : we know FOR SURE that he didn't chose the Golden Path, 'cause he hadn't seen the GoldenPath conclusion (Kralizec then human-salvation), and so from his point of view, humanity was doomed and condemned without hope and solution. And so he's "justified".

But at this point my question is :

Because of he ABSOLUTELY feared and was terrified by the worm trasformation, if he would have seen beyond the Golden Path (kralizec and human-salvation), he would have choosen to do the trasformation?

Sincerely I have doubt about it.

Words to you :)

[TMA_1]

See, that is what prompted me to say that paul was a coward, that he was afraid of damning himself with the transformation. Not just because the transformation would eventually make him inhuman, but also because once the sandtrout fell off of his body they would all contain a part of his consciousness, which would leave him in a half life forever. It is more than that though.

Paul was afraid of the future, and his interpritation of the future. He realized that the future was not linear, but contained many pathways, and many he couldnt fully understand. Because of this he was afraid of starting the golden path and not being able to follow through, since the golden path left for almost no room for error. If he would have screwed up just a little, the entire fate of humanity would be obliterated. HE wasent sure if he could save humanity and it seems that he was afraid he might end up damning it.

He was no coward, he may be weaker compared to Leto II, but he was no coward.

[TMA_1]

yeah but I wouldnt call the fear of potentially killing hundreds of billions of sentient beings an act of cowardice. lol

[3ngel]

Yes, from this point of view, as i've said, Paul is not so coward, but as TMA said, weaker (MORE weaker :)) than Leto II.

This is a very good conclusion, because Paul was not able to districate the many future pathways because he had know that only seeing a possible future was modifyng it.

Instead Leto II (third book), was able to BECAME ALL THE FUTURES, compenetrating himself in the structure of the universe itself, indeed BECAMING THE UNIVERSE.

In this way he was no more observing, because being himself the universe, he was "directing" or even better "pulsating" it. Terrific :)

EDIT : I can add that Paul was not "pushed" to choose the Golden Path by the sense of "the sake of the tribe" like Leto II, because Paul was not a fremen.

[TMA_1]

Yes, yes! Leto II was the giver AND the taker. Paul was only the Taker. Leto II was male and female, God/worm and man, rationality and animalism, savior and tyrant all in one. Leto II was the divided God who saw what needed to be done and saw all inside one body. Leto II was more equipped to deal with the Golden Path. Paul is no coward for fearing the path, heck he was wise not to takeit because he might not have succeeded, hell he may have not even been able to take on the sandtrout suit in the first place.

Good points 3ngel! :)

[TMA_1]

hmm I only remember that in the movie...

In fact I remember Dune referring to the Bene Gesserit as the takers, since they are female and it is apart of theri genetics, evolving from being the caretakers, and that Paul was the Taker, being from the male side of the spectrum, of the hunter gatherer type. I am not being very eloquent here, but you get what I am saying hopefully. I remember hte book mentioning that paul was the Taker because he was male. SO he kinda made things whole. I dont remember it mentioning that he was both the giver and the taker, but it hasb een awhile since I have read the books. please find where it says that though so I can correct myself. :)

[3ngel]

Eheh thanks TMA ;)

I think here we're are debating in a quite high and complex way, and i'm quite happy we're able to do it, revealing and clarifyng a complex work like FH one's :)

[TMA_1]

err no, Leto II was also an abomination, having past memories even before he took on the water of life. He also was more in tune with his abilities and was more focused at his skills than Paul was, in my opinion even in those seasoned days right before he took the water of life. Leto II was a totally different power all together. You can see this when he took the water of life, and you could also see this when he talks with his father.

Paul was more than just the Kwisatz Haderach, he was more than any design created by the bene gesserit. Paul was the lever that turned the universe on itself. Leto II was a more perfected person from Paul that could fulfill all of the things that needed to be fulfilled.

Sometimes I just wonder if frank had all of these things in mind. It just shocks me that all of these concepts could have all been incorperated into six novels, blows me away.

[3ngel]

Sometimes I just wonder if frank had all of these things in mind. It just shocks me that all of these concepts could have all been incorperated into six novels, blows me away

Yes, i think same too. I have read a same situation in the Stephen King Sixlogy : "Black Tower".

In these six books, there are so many complex, differential, opposite and astonishing concept, and they are all perfectly compenetrating one into another, making such an incredible complex and coherent web.

In the notes, King says, that after a certain point, the book writes itself, it calls you to write, and all the things you write can't be different from what you want to write, despite the complexity.

So i think for Frank, it's been something like that too. At a certain point i think for him, it's been a sort of Joician "wave of thougth", but in a way controlled and rationalized. Things he had to write couldn't be different from things he wanted to write.

And this is absolutely visible in GEOD, where sometimes FH goes into pure "flux of mind".

[Egeides]

Yes, yes! Leto II was the giver AND the taker. Paul was only the Taker. Leto II was male and female, God/worm and man, rationality and animalism, savior and tyrant all in one. Leto II was the divided God who saw what needed to be done and saw all inside one body. Leto II was more equipped to deal with the Golden Path. Paul is no coward for fearing the path, heck he was wise not to takeit because he might not have succeeded, hell he may have not even been able to take on the sandtrout suit in the first place.

Good points 3ngel! :)

Yep, Leto II was a fascist. Good boy.*

Someone brought something interesting. Why does Paul only foresee one child rather than two?

One's vision can be uncomplete, and someone in this situation might prefer to base himself on "moral feelings", which can be interpreted as weekness. All this fits pretty much with my first view of it, although I didn't debate it. As Faith, where someone suspends his judgement because he still has faith in his former vision as he considers that his limited personae might not catch everything of a harsh picture. Like people questioning theologic beliefs in front of catastrophies or Mankind's suffering (take Job in the Bible). It is at times interpreted as weakness or cowardice, especially by different brands of nihilists.

All this hasn't to do simply with Dune, it has to do with ideas behind, without the gymnastic of poetry (bringing litterature). Thus my new question brought to your minds:

Someone brought something interesting. Why does Paul only foresee one child rather than two?

As for this form of automatically coherent writing, it is no surprise. If someone writes entirely from one coherent stance, everything that will come from the whole will also lead to the whole.

*I'm not being simplistic with fascism (although I am broadly speaking), neither am I diminishing the caracter of Leto II, nor am I really even discussing his moral justifications. I simply state his stance and am ironic about it. In a world (fictional or real) where only survival or primal instincts are left, also only crisis reactions are still adapted. Right now, many would be quite unsure about such "mean for Mankind's end", and would suspend their judgement instead of blindly following a perhaps incomplete rational lead. Just as Paul, and it is what brings my interest in the question.

[3ngel]

I'm not being simplistic with fascism

Leto II was "fascist" against his will, because fascism was the minus amongs the human-evils.

If there was no fascism, there was burocracy wich brings corruption, which brings hot-headed unsatisfacted trying to scale up the burocracy, which brings at certain point a fascist-burocracy, which brings again fascisms, which brings rebellious trying to scale up the fascismocracy, which brings fascism-killing, which brings buracracy.... and all repeats from the top...

In all this chain there is no gain of experience, only errors repeteated over and over.

In the Leto II fascism, instead there is a strong lesson : the humanity in its ENTIRY learns what does it means to be segregated, and so develop an absolutely strong sense of freedom, marked forever in its dna. Humanity in this way will learn on its own skin the meaning of enslavement, and in the future hardly will repeat the same error.

That's all the Leto II policy.

Regarding

Why does Paul only foresee one child rather than two

Because Leto II was quite on another existence plain on a universal scale.

He was protected by the view of the foreseer (first) and then even from a Kwistazhaderach foreseeing (being so more powerful than a Kwisatz).

[Egeides]

Leto II was "fascist" against his will, because fascism was the minus amongs the human-evils.

Agreed. I was being ironic with "He's fascist. Good boy."

I think that some might think that there are other paths, still to be searched like many other things. Leto II ends up as a fascist of its kind, the Duniverse being of a nature to which Leto II adapts well, showing many ideological trails throughout the litterary poetry.

The nature of this universe with its society, with your description of bureaucracy and such, is not self-regenerating enough, and has oppositions which lead to important frictions instead of "smooth as possible" coherence. The dissociation of different ideological sections brings a need for a Leto II bringing profound changes, coherence and revejuneration.

Because Leto II was quite on another existence plain on a universal scale.

He was protected by the view of the foreseer (first) and then even from a Kwistazhaderach foreseeing (being so more powerful than a Kwisatz).

I'll interpret "other existence plane" as "a further step of conceptualization" (ok?). But what do you mean when saying that, compared to Leto II, he was protected by foreseer and Haderach foreseeing?

[3ngel]

I'll interpret "other existence plane" as "a further step of conceptualization" (ok?)

Yes, that's correct.

But what do you mean when saying that, compared to Leto II, he was protected by foreseer and Haderach foreseeing?

Regarding "foreseer" i intend a being like a Guild navigator. Haderach is a further step in the foreseeing, in the sense that Haderach can see where (and when) Guild navigator can't. Leto II is a even further step in the foreseeing.

In a scale example : normal humans can be seen by a Guild navigator, Haderach can't be seen by a Guild Navigator, Leto II can't be seen by an Haderach.

[Egeides]

From where do you know that there is a kwisatz-kwisatzhaderach-leto hierarchy for Herbert? I don't remember these things that much, and couldn't point where it is discussed really. Was how this works written? Leto is "spicey" by nature thus is sorta his "own primary source [of what spice provides]" so direct access to "history/thinking/essential nexus / universal thinking way", while haderach is some form of "total human"... nope? Was there more?

As for Paul and moral now. I'm not sure what it's worth, but anyway I'll just see reactions. I think I kindda did the thinking path backwards and ended up with a new route (like when you hike and then go down a mountain... Funny method to think... anyway):

What was Leto II for Paul? Immorality, or doubtful morality, in any case imperfection of the Path to freedom/justice/Enlightenment which was to be gained by a revolution.

Thus, considering that a perfect path would mean no Leto rule, Leto in the end was not in this.

One could say that Paul was in Herbert's view of Dune (a) "blinded by moral" (include fear* as mecanism against errors or whattever), thus didnt see Leto. Or (b) Leto had further and direct conceptualization, thus no "instinctive" morals, strictly cause-effect and such. It was rather entirely by "pure rationality", then moral by definition.

Well even then, of course, Leto doesn't see everything technically, just the fundamentals. He doesn't simply predict everything of the next book.

So if it would be such, just as big picture, it would look like rationality taking the big role, moral becoming all-included within Leto's rationality as his mind encompasses more in "quantity" (more of rationally organized empirical data), then his rule for survival moral in such circumstances. Ideal-aims revolution became survival-aims empire, considered pragmatic. Moral systems gradually become one with rationality (by empiric assimilation to a more complete map) which leads to a "survival path"....... and then BG/HM and Odrade, but that's another topic :P Spice, as a drug, also has its role as bringing some given state more automatically, stably or else.

* And incorporate the BG's view on it here. Fear is here a basic protective mecanism against error, or an error of irrationality. In Duniverse it's presented an error, but some might say Paul would see the rational sense.

[TMA_1]

its not that Navigators see or dont see the Kwizats Hederach, remember it mentioned that they felt a strong central power, kinda a powerful point in the crossroads of the cosmos. The Navigators felt something powerful, felt something controlling and altering the pathways of time, and that unknown frightened them. Which is obviously why they sent envoys to Arrakis to see what the hell was going on.lol

you hit a neat point for me Egeides. Its that Paul when he becomes the "blind  prophet" he fits the mold for a great greek tragedy, in fact the entire story of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune are perfect tragedies. They have the downfall of the hero, the Deus Ex Machina story type going on through the whole thing with Paul and Leto II solving difficult problems, but with a price. Even Paul fits the mold of all the great greek tragedies of being the prophet of warning, the blind prophet speaking wisdom where there is little. awesome stuff.

[MrFlibble]

When I read the original Frank Herbert's books, I always used to think that the Butlerian Jihad was called 'butlerian' because it was a jihad against 'butlers', the servant machines (Herbert also notes that the rare machines that are still allowed in the Imperium are called 'servoqs', a word that has the same root as 'servant'). And the prequels state that the jihad was named after some Serena Butler, the initiator.

And also, from Frank herbert's books I understood that Butlerian Jihad was not at all like a war against some supercomputers, as thet prequels state, but something like Mahdi's Jihad, but the idea here was to rid the humanity of the machines that posed a possible threat, similiar to what Leto says in GEOD, that the machines increase the number of things we do without thinking, which is dangerous.

[TMA_1]

well I do agree that the Butlerian Jihad was faught for different purposes than what the prequels mention. I personally believe that the Jihad was against the plutocracy of the programmites. That a very small few had control over most of the thinking machines in the known universe. I part ways with the idea that it was the thinking machines who were in control. I believe it was a small cabal of brilliant leaders controlling the machines.

[MrFlibble]

What do you think about "Butlerian Jihad" = "Jihad against (machine) butlers"? Is it a possible interpretation? ???

I'm not a native English speaker, so I may have certain wrong impressions...