From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: graemecree@aol.com
Subject: Re: Vulcan Racism Vs. IDIC?
On Dec 28, 4:07apm, "Wouter Valentijn" wrote:
> At the end of ITITNB there is this conversation:
The phrase "Infinite Diversity" does appear in the episode, but it's
never stated exactly what IDIC stands for, if anything at all. (It's
not even explicitly stated that IDIC is an acronym). We know what
they were thinking, because we've seen those non-canon blueprints and
tech manuals and things, and because one TAS episode explicitly said
so (before there was any distinction about canon and non-canon). But
it's never explicitly stated in that episode (but maybe it was in
others; I'm not familiar enough with Next Gen and beyond to know if
they ever mentioned it there. Even Kirk's middle name of Tiberius,
long non-canon despite being mentioned in TAS, was finally "canonized"
in Star Trek VI).
> Why is there 'no longer infinite diversity'?
> I see no contradiction.
Well, if you accept the idea of limited diversity, then you don't also
believe in infinite diversity. On the other hand, if you reject the
idea of limited diversity, then again, there's at least one thing
you've rejected, so again your diversity is no longer infinite.
And even leaving aside the logical difficulty, the whole thing is
silly. Saying all diversity is good is as silly as saying that all
diversity is bad. We certainly never saw any Vulcan live that way.
They all officially reject emotionalism, for example, despite the fact
that it's one example of that infinite diversity that IDIC supposedly
says they have to appreciate. It's kind of like the Vulcan version of
the Prime Directive; something we claim to believe in because it
sounds good, then ignore freely.
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
* Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux
* Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)
|
