John Dalmas Guestbook

< Don Curtiss > at 2008-06-06 12:42:46 EST

Just finished "The Bavarian Gate". Redd the Afterword -- I have a BS and and MF from U of W. I am gobsmacked! Enjoy all of your works. (I was a choker-setter)

< Rudolph Gordon > at 2008-06-05 23:05:23 EST

I came across 'The Yngling', (I believe it was in Analog Magazine, and I also read 'But Mainly by Cunning'.
I cannot remember coming across any of your other books, but you can imagine that I still remember your name and the names of the stories. That was close to 40 years.
Congratulations to a great writer.
Rudy Gordon

< Brett Wallace > at 2008-05-01 14:02:38 EST

Mr.Dalmus. Reading your books has been a pleasure and a spiritual inspiration for me. Over twenty years ago I read “Regiment” When I was in the army and I was very taken with your Hindo-Buddist-deist spiritual construct. It is quite realistic; from my experience of 40 years on the spiritual path seeking the truth about God/the One.
The Hindus realize that the earth is quite old. Clearly those with eyes to see and ears to hear, realize that evolution is real. The evidence is clear, but everything is still just made of one substance and one energy which has taken many forms for educational purposes. The greatest evolution is that of the soul which evolves and learns lifetime after lifetime on schoolroom Earth. As you, and others have stated, we follow a different “script” each time to learn what we have been designed to learn. Our learning benefits God and ourselves as we are a part of that One.
There is no religion in God, but you know that. People have to start somewhere to discover themselves in God and your books are a great introduction. Thank you for listening to the God within yourself and sharing it with others. Brett Wallace

< David Palter > at 2008-04-10 17:48:30 EST

The suggestion that the entire cosmos may be alive or conscious in some manner reminds me of the Gaia Hypothesis advanced by the scientist James Lovelock, who suggested that the entire biosphere of the planet Earth functions as a single organism. Creatures such as human beings are in a sense like the cells of a multi-cellular organism; they form a part of the whole even though they may have no awareness of what their function actually is. The Gaia Hypothesis is attractive because of the way in which ecological systems are so remarkably self-correcting. The interactions between different species add up to a functional ecosystem, even though every species, as far as we can tell, evolved merely for its own benefit and survival. Yet, the survival of a given species does depend upon a functional ecosystem in which to live, much as the survival of a single cell in a multi-cellular organism depends upon the survival of the larger organism. Whether an ecology or even the sum total of all global ecologies can really be considered to be a single creature (named Gaia after the Greek Earth Goddess) is debatable, but there is at least a certain similarity.

Your own hypothesis of the conscious universe would not have as obvious a basis, but it would fit with the anthropic principle, as well as fitting with your own personal definition of God. Is it possible that the creator of the universe also IS the universe? Can something create itself? That would violate a scientific principle known as "causality" which states that all events have causes and the cause of an event always comes earlier in time than the event which it causes. This is an interesting principle in itself, one which we have never seen to be violated, but which, if you consider its full logical implications, creates a tremendous puzzle. If every event has an earlier cause, and each cause (which is also an event) necessarily has an earlier cause of its own, then the events which currently occur in our universe would seem to have resulted from an infinite series of earlier events. There can be no first event, because if there was, that first event would itself have no earlier cause, hence, it would violate the principle of causality.

Perhaps we might modify the principle of causality. Maybe every event has a cause, and every cause is earlier than the event which it caused, with one exception, that being the first event, which was not caused by an earlier event but which instead had no cause. How can an event happen without a cause? We don't know. But the idea doesn't seem any less believable than the idea of a series of events which extend infinitely far back in time, having no beginning. Either way, it's pretty weird. But then, reality is under no obligation to conform to human concepts of normality.

So, if the universe itself is conscious in some way, it might well prefer to nurture the existence of other, smaller intelligences within it, if only for amusement. I certainly do not buy the Judao/Christian/Islamic concept that God created human beings so that we could worship Him, or so that He would have an appreciative audience for His magnificent acts of creation; this implies that God is an egotistical creature who craves praise, and that is a very petty motive for such a (supposedly) great being. It would be much easier for me to believe that God (whoever or whatever God actually may be) created life or created the conditions under which life could evolve, for His own amusement, rather than so that He would be elaborately and continually praised. If God is indeed great, wonderful, terrific, powerful, wise, compassionate, creative, etc., He would be well aware of His own greatness and would have no need for us to constantly tell Him how great He is.

The whole argument of the Anthropic Principle is desgined to use scientific reasoning to arrive at religious conclusions, and I personally don't find it very persuasive, although I do not find it to be entirely ridiculous, either; I don't think that any human being really knows for certain how the universe came into being, or whether the universe was created deliberately or accidentally, and whether, if it was created deliberately, it was designed in such a way as to facilitate the emergence of intelligent creatures such as ourselves. My own hypothesis is that in some other universe, very different from ours yet strangely similar in some respcts, students in a high school science class were assigned the project of creating a universe, and they came up with ours. I would imagine that their teacher was pleased with their work.

< David Palter > at 2008-04-05 11:42:55 EST

I agree with your comments. I would add that intolerance of homosexuality in general is based upon the mistaken belief that if homosexuality is socially tolerated, this will result in a greater incidence of homosexuality, and parents generally would rather that their children be heterosexual. But actually, while intolerance can make homosexuals more secretive and more unhappy (and even, in many cases, drive them to suicide) it does not change their sexual orientation. And although there are those who make a big show of converting people from gay to straight (religion being the usual mechanism for this transformation) that is just a fake. Given sufficient motive, people will lie about this (or about anything). But sexual orientation is not so easily changed. We might imagine as science ficiton fans that there will eventually be some technological means of altering sexual orientation, but by the time such a thing exists, we will probably have come to realize, as a society, that such changes are not necessary.

< Bill Mattson > at 2008-03-31 11:04:18 EST

Thanks for the biosketch of Egolfs, a scholar's scholar. I knew and admired him from 1968 til his death. I last spoke with Egolfs only hours before he died. He wished to thank the "Bungists" for their friendship, and then he talked briefly about the absurd politics of our time. His life had witnessed decade after decade of such cruel corruption and inhumanity. Scholarship was a counter balance and welcome respite from the unrelenting, darker side of man's nature.

< cheryl varner > at 2008-03-27 16:19:26 EST

Hi John, this is the old warrior Cheryl from MT. a question: where can I get info on the tai chi warm-ups you do, chakra scrubs and acupressure? thanks and take care.

< Joel Davis > at 2008-03-24 00:10:10 EST

Thanks for the mention of "Mother Tongue", John. Appreciate it! Your blogger respondents should know that the book is OP, but still available via Alibris and Amazon from various private sellers. (And I have a few copies, also.)

More to the point--even though I wrote that some years back, i continue to be fascinated by lingistics and especially by the origins of language. I'm currently doing some poking around at a possible article on this topic for "Analog". We'll see what develops!

< Joel Davis > at 2008-03-24 00:00:33 EST

Well, as you know, John, I've been rooting for this book since we first discussed--was it REALLY 15 years ago? My goodness... I like the forward you have here. It quickly sets the back-story and gives the readers what they nned to move forward. (Pardon the terrible pun.)

< G Tellier > at 2008-03-16 17:18:40 EST

I would like to thank you for a most enlightening (and entertaining) read. This article (and others) seems to articulate several views that I have recently developed, both in regards to the Evolution/Creation/ God question and to ecology in general. I would also like to point out that I am a rather firm Catholic and currently an Engineering student.

Once again, kudos and thanks.

< Earl Dean > at 2008-03-08 22:04:42 EST

Hi John,
It's been a while since we traded emails, but I'm still reading, and your books are always a good way to pass the time. I really like your new website, and I did receive notice of it through your contact list.

< George Kannapel > at 2008-03-07 20:59:48 EST

John

Pls accept my heratfelt condolences on the passing of your great love in life. If we can do lunch agagin some day, please let me know. I need your address and phone and such.

George

< Kämppi Tuija > at 2008-03-06 05:58:51 EST

Have you read Tale of the Forest Folk by Veikko Huovinen? It's a fictional (hi)story of a forest.

< Wayne Spitzer > at 2008-03-04 00:22:47 EST

John,

I am so sorry for your loss. There are no words. If it helps even a little, be assured there are people you've touched and inspired over the years of your adventurous life who think of you often. I see Lisa Pirkkala has dropped in...perhaps other members of our old Word Weavers writing group in Spokane will drop in as well, if they haven't already. If you need anything at all, we are all here.

p.s.
I used an ellipsis just to get your goat...

< Francis Turner > at 2008-01-08 17:18:53 EST

Firstly, my condolences on your loss.

Secondly and in re:this post

Kyllä!!! Haluan lukea hänet (and if as is quite possible the finnish is wrong due to excessive rustiness that means yes!!! I want to read it)

When I lived in Helsinki in 1990 there was a pub/club called Karle Kaksitoista and I never really knew whom it was named after.

< Geoffrey Kidd > at 2008-01-08 13:00:34 EST

I liked it. It gives, I think, pretty much the broad background of the situation, including the major players, so, just as in a science-fiction novel, the reader won't be confused as to "Who's in the conflict" and "Why the conflict" and "Where the conflict", though I'd recommend including at least broad-scale maps to help with that. More, please? Thank you.

< John McDonald > at 2008-01-07 18:58:43 EST

John,
I am truly sorry to hear of your loss.

John "the Old Grunt" McDonald

< Debbie Lentz > at 2007-12-31 21:28:24 EST

John,Tom and my thoughts are with you. Please let us know if there is anything we can do for you.

-Deb

< mark leigh > at 2007-12-27 03:44:13 EST

try reasearching the cost for the typical aids three drug cocktail. $1000 (yes one thousand)per month minimum

< Jay Hailey > at 2007-12-23 14:41:26 EST

Once upon a time I over heard a man at work criticize evolution. he said "It's like you took a box of parts, threw it down a hill and ended up with a watch."

I didn't comment at the time. But later I realized his metaphor had critical flaws. If you take a box of parts and roll them down the hill millions of times, and systematically filter for anything closer to the watch, you'll get a watch.

This metaphor isn't exact. Evoltuion isn't aiming at anything. The filter is survival. Anything that survives better passes the filter, anything that doe not survive does not.

But I realized what the guy was having real problems with.

Douglas Adams said that space is too large to fit in the human imagination. The numbers are too mind bogglingly large.

I think geological time is much the same. it defeats the imagination. It's almost impossible to picture 1000 years, let alone 1,000,000 years.

Sometimes I look at biological things like eyes, brains and ovaries. and I think "You must must be kidding me! Those came up RANDOMLY?" It's difficult to imagine the incredible spans of time and how my generations of creatures have come and gone.

Richard Dawkins came up with a nice metaphorical description in his book "The Ancestor's Tale"

I try stretch my brain out and keep it limber.

But 65 million years is heavy lifting indeed. I am not sure I can mentally budge that.

Jay ~Meow!~