User talk:Lundse/Zeus69962 Dune discrepancy discussion

Intro
User:Zeus69962 has put up a lot of links to this page, so I'll just explain a few things. The first section is the "call for help" I got and not really relevant, the second starts of with me and Zeus' agreement to discuss this and degenerates from there. I suggest you read a couple of Zeus' and mine's last replies to get an idea of the discussion, if you want to read more (and I cannot imagine why), most single "threads" are indicative of how it all went. Also note that I have deleted his attempts to goad me into further discussion from my main talk page without bothering to paste it in here (too much work, nothing was really said in the posts). Oh, and you should know that his next step after that was setting up sock puppets... (User:Leeshy, User:Kwisatz_Haderach_00100, User:Nat18327). Lundse 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Frank Herbert
Lundse, I seriously need your help on the Frank Herbert page. A fanboy named Zeus69962 has taken it upon himself to 'defend' Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, and we're on the verge of an edit war. Justin Johnson 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry?! Is it wrong to defend someone? Especially since I believe that they have done a great job at continuing an extremely difficult saga to add to with much to explain. I have read all of the Dune books including the prequels. I stand by the fact that most of your issues with them can be explained and I reiterate that I'm sure that there is at least one problem with it but that one problem itself doesn't justify an entire controversy section unless it's huge... I will conscent to one if you find something worth putting there (with a more than 50% probability) but as of now I can't tell if there is even one at all that I can't explain.

Zeus69962 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion with Zeus69962
Hey!

I'm sorry... I didn't read my talk page. I'm not used to the Wikipedia system and I'm not too great of a fan of Wikipedia in general because of the fact that anyone can add information to it at any time and overrule someone else if they keep writing over them... Is there a governing body for this? Anyway, give me your IM and I'll be happy to discuss this matter in private. Moreover, it would be much more efficient than constantly posting here and waiting for a responce. Much more efficient. I have an account in all the IM programs - MSN, AIM, YAHOO, etc... I stand by the fact that most if not all of the things which you claim to be inconsistancies are not and if you closely at the books you will see that. I'm sure there is at least one inconsistancy but you are making it seem as if it's rife with them. That is most definately not the case. Zeus69962 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you just delete all of what I wrote? Put it back now or I will report you. I said that I was willing to discuss this with you personally if you choose.

Zeus69962 23:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the confusion. I did not delete your message to ignore you, I just respondedd elsewhere (your tal page and the FH talk page). I will be happy to dicus matters here if you choose. Lundse 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an IM software? i can't keep track of your questions here.

Also in regards to this:

>>I never claimed it was Brian who made up that the machines had enslaved men or that the war was between AI and humans, and it is irrelevant. What I claim is that FH did not envisin the Jihad that way. Neither have I ever claimed that he falsified any notes. Please do not make me out to say things I have never done, that is called strawmanning and it is a kind of ad hominem attack, ie. not very NPOV. Lundse 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you specifically... There was someone there claiming that it was Brian. and in the controversy section it still says things which shouldn't be there. You deleted all of my answers to your questions. That was not very nice at all and it took me much time to remember all of those.

Zeus69962 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not mean to. It is still in the history if you want it. I'd rather not use IM software for this, instead, lets indent our answers with colons. I will state my arguments below and under each of them, you can insert a colon and then your message (preview to check if it looks right). I'll do the same when responding. No need to sign it all - we'll assume others do not drop by.

I want though for people to see the answers to the questions... I dont want all of this to be for naught and then someone else comes along a month from now and tries to change it again... On another note I removed the part at the bottom where we all go off on a tangent on each other... It doesn't serve any purpose and it is going well this way. I don't think there is any info there which is important/relevant... If there is then I appologize and put it back but i just wanted to remove the attacks on me and my subsequent retaliatory attacks :) Let's keep this enlightened, civil and steady on the golden path of the right answer.

Zeus69962 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion proper
>>First, your argument that the remaining ban is on machines and therefore the war must have been between humans and machines. I maintain that it might also have been fought *over* the question of machines. If you were right, then the law against counterfeiting currency means that eg. the US must have fought a war against an army made of false pennies. I cannot see how the war must have been fought against enslaving machines just because humanity has banned machines, there are other reasons and these are what Dune is all about.


 * That is not my sole basis. Still though, the text in the book reads "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"... Now the law against counterfitting isn't "Thou shall not make currency in the image of a human"... lol so your arguement doesn't work. My other evidence is the movie where they explained the backstory. Frank authorized that while still alive so regardless of if he created it or not and even if he did think up the idea which you think he did - He must have prefered the machine war version better.


 * You are misrepresenting my "counterfeiting argument", but if you want, try substituting clones for pennies and try "Thou shall not make a clone in the image of a human" and tell me how all the countries with similar laws have had wars against clones.


 * but the arguement for a clone would still be different - it would be because of the moral implications of creating life - then killing the defective ones - though, if there was a clone war and the clones enslaved humanity - I'm sure there would be a law such as that.


 * Yes, that might be the reason to not have clones, but that is besides the point. My point is: if "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" proves there was a war against machines, then "Thou shall not make a clone in the image of a human" proves there was a war against clones. It is an "ad absurdium" argument - since the latter obviously is wrong, the former must be too (as they have the same structure).


 * No it doesn't because you're forgetting that it's not just any law. It is the 1st law. The most important law - It must mean that a machine was made in the likeness of a human for it to be more important than murder or theft. y'know what I mean?


 * This is irrelavant, my point relates to the structure of your argument, the importance of the law does not enter into it.


 * I say it is important because Brian (although you do not want to admit it - why I'm not sure because you haven't even read the other books - and I reiterate that the answers are in them) is a decent writer in his own right. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that these are true then they shouldn't be up here. period.


 * You are not even trying now, are you? I present an argument and you ignore it, I do not care how good a writer he is, I care about the structure of the two arguments and that they are both obviously wrong, which you have not responded to. The important of the law still does not mean anything to the argument I am presenting, nor does BH's writing credentials mean anything to either.


 * I did not ignore anything. I answered it it does mean something... the two do not go against each other and can be worked together.


 * You ignored my argument. Here it is again: if "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind" proves there was a war against machines, then "Thou shall not make a clone in the image of a human" proves there was a war against clones. It is an "reductio ad absurdium" argument - since the latter obviously is wrong, the former must be too (as they have the same structure). Do you understand how this is an argument? If you disagree with it, do not just say so, tell me where the fault in it's logic lies.


 * No! I did not ignore your argument... If you fail to see my answer that is your problem, ask again but do not blame me! Your fault lies in the fact that you are forgetting the fact that it is not just a law (our clone law is not even a commandment directly). This however, is the primary law, it was so important that they made it above even something like murder... It is worse to create a machine than to murder someone - do you comprehend that? That in itself, deserves some attention.


 * The movie is not evidence, sorry. It was not canon, if it was (and Dune still is) Paul both did and did not employ shoulder-mounted-shoot-and-shout-sonic-laserguns.


 * I stated that the movie is not evidence. However, it only serves to show that Frank did authorize a thinking machine story while he was alive. That is the only purpose in that. aside from that (but keeping that fact in mind( let's forget it :)

>>"Its possession [a fencing machine] was the shibboleth of this age, but it carried also the taint of old immorality. Once, they'd been guided by an artificial intelligence, computer brains. The Butlerian Jihad had ended that, but it hadn't ended the aura of aristocratic vice which enclosed such things." So humanity was "guided" by "computer brains", not enslaved.


 * This was probably in regards to the "time before the titans" at the end of the old empire... he is probably talking about the state of apathy when humans let the machines do everything for them which let them to stagnate. In any regard, the two do not have to be mutually exclussive - for example, it could be a war on machines while still having the state of mentality which you state. The only thing different about your analogy is that it was human vs human. Why is it such a bad thing for it to be against machines - Keep in mind that Terminator wasn't yet made neither was Matrix so it was a fairly new concept in that magnitude.


 * Now we are getting somewhere. What I am pointing out is that all through Dune and subsequent books, "humans let the machines do everything for them which let them to stagnate" as you say. My point, then, is this: There is a lot of evidence for this in Dune et al. There is no evidence for a war that was solely AI vs humans, nor of enslavement by machines. The natural thing to assume, based on Dune, is that it was a religious purge (it is also described in close to those words, eg. jihad). If you want, I am sure you can claim that first came the stagnation, then the AI vs human war and then the philosophical/religious-themed final purge.


 * Exactly "first came the stagnation, then the AI vs human war and then the philosophical/religious-themed final purge." In that order


 * And the AI vs human war is not a necesarry step, see the Leto II quote on this.


 * maybe to you but some people wanted the story explained... it's not just a terminator war... it's much more complex than that. It involves the same principles of the philosophical implications which you want addressed.


 * I hardly believe the war explains anything of FH's points, Heidegger or other philosophy or anything related. Please tell me how it does if you believe I am wrong. And "wanting the story explained" is no argument for taking whatever BH writes as canon and retrofitting everything FH wrote to fit it.


 * If you want a philosopher to relate this to see Thomas Hobbes - He claims that "the human body is like a machine (Brain = c.p.u, veins = wires, etc..., and that 'political organization' (the commonwealth) is like an artificial human being." As well he states that "the truth of his ideas can be gauged only by self-examination, by looking into our selves to adjudge our characteristic thoughts and passions, which form the basis of all men's actions." He also talks about war and the sort. Who said that DUNE was entirely a Heidegger philosophy? I don't think it was Frank Herbert.

And FH did read and employ phenomenological philosophy, without analysis huge sections of his books, let me point to the fact that the proagonist of "The Santaroga Barrier" was named "Dasein" after a Heideggerian philosophical term. And Leto II reiterates a Heideggerian point: "The devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines" - a gun-totting cyborg does little to further such a point, rather, he demeans it.
 * How is your Hobbes quots relevant? Because he mentions machines and believed in a deterministic universe? Again, please tell me how the war adds any message? Oh, and how it does not belittle the message of FH and the Jihad to replace its reasoning with a war.


 * Did you read the quote... it is very relevant... did frank herbert specifically say that he was using an entirely Heideggerian point? if no then your case is invalid. it is your opinion and not fact... fact cannot be put up against opinion - this is fact - Mr. Herberts name was Frank - saying that you wanted it to be Bob or Tim would be irrelivent... His name IS Frank. Just as This IS the story!


 * So because Hobbes talks about "war and that sort", it is relevant? Now, I have actually read Hobbes and attended lectures on him. If it is relevant, please *explain* how - as I asked you to. This is another example of you just restating a claim instead of coming up with arguments - I am not going to keep this up if you do not enter a discussion. And my point does not become invalid because he used other ideas (eg. he used Jung intensively), I am merely saying that (especially pertaining to the jihad) he used Heidegger. If you know of any other inspiration, themes or points (also his own, of course) and *how the prequels use that* please let me know.


 * Did you listen to these lectures. Do you know what a leviathan is? It denotes any large animal that moves by writhing or wriggling the body, the whale, the monsters of the deep. Shai Hulud for example is a Leviathan... Leviathan is also the name of a historical document written by Thomas Hobbes in which he postulates,

-" NATURE (the art whereby God hath made and governs the world) is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an artificial animal. For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within, why may we not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer?" Hobbes saw the commonwealth, or 'society', as a machine as well (on a much larger scale than the human being and artificial in and of itself but nevertheless operating according to the laws governing motion and collision.)

Can you not see anything else in there that has a philosophical context that goes with Dune? Much of it does! Here are some quotes from Dune that pertain to a Hobbesian Philosophy:

Here's a quote from The Tleilaxu Godbuk - Dune Messiah, "No matter how exotic human civilization becomes, no matter the developments of life and society, nor the complexity of the machine/human interface, there always come interludes of lonely power when the course of humankind, the very future of humankind, depends upon the relatively simple actions of single individuals."

A quote from Law and Governance, The Spacing Guild Manual, Children of Dune, "Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders."

One from Suk Inner School, Primary Directive - Dune: House Atreides, "The human body is a machine, a system of organic chemicals, fluid conduits, electrical impulses; a government is likewise a machine of interacting societies, laws, cultures, rewards and punishments, patterns of behavior. Ultimately, the universe itself is a machine, planets around suns, stars gathered into clusters, clusters and other suns forming entire galaxies�. Our job is to keep the machinery functioning."

another from Dr. Rajid Suk, Post-Trauma Analysis of the Human Species - Dune: The Butlerian Jihad, "One of the questions the Butlerian Jihad answered with violence was whether the human body is simply a machine that a man-made machine can duplicate. The results of the war answered the question."

If you cannot then I suggest you go back to those seminars and lectures :)


 * While such a view might be possible to hold up, it still does violence to the idea of the jihad, which is that humans stagnated, fought a revolution and decided to do without machines. If the bad thing about machines was that they tended to enslave humanity, that could be fixed (eg. by not giving them a physical form which they could move about) - in fact, it seems weird it was not fixed before the problem arose. Why depend on the spacing guild if you could make machines? The reason cannot justbe that "machines once attacked us" - for that you take away their weaponry. The reason must be something more - and that more is what the jihad was about.


 * No it doesn't - why must the two be mutually exclusive - it seems very reasonable and both of our viewpoints could be addressed - yours because the major machines were still in some respect of the word - humans - they were born humans and transfered their brains into cyborg bodies. In addition, most/ all of their army had disembodied brains too. there were very few AI's completely devoid of some form of humanity. The prime excemption is Omnius: The Evermind and his duplicates on other synchronized worlds.


 * Again, if the problem was machines, cyborgs, whatever attacking humans, that could be fixed by not giving them movable parts (or hardwiring Asimov laws). So why the purge and long-lasting hatred of machines? It does not make sense, unless the real reason was that machines "destroy the soul".


 * Because Omnius had no moving parts yet he was the worst - any machine which simulated human awareness became exinct after The Cult of Serena went on a religious spree hoping to destroy all vestages for Omnius to go to/control. As well, The Bene Gesserit kept a machine in their possession if I'm not mistaken after that war to assist with the genetic records - maybe they propogated it so they were justified in their decision. Don't hold me on this one though.


 * Nonsense, whoever this omnius was, he obviously had control over something with moving parts, meaning he had moving parts. My point is you could have disarmed the machines and kept using them - *if* the problem was enslavement/war, *not* if it was for philosophical reasons having to do with just *having* computers. So the ban on machines only makes sense out of philosophical reasons, not because of any war.


 * But Omnius itself had none which invalidates your claim about "moving parts" which was the nonsensical thing initially, I just responded as such. The fact is that this would have been answered had you read the books; The Cult of Serena wouldn't allow it. Read the book and you'd know that.

Again, if one had so stripped them of power, one could employ them without the need for a ban on all computers. But having a "shalt not" against "likeness of human" is just not necesarry, it is only necesarry if the problem is machines *thinking* for us, in itself.
 * Are you not able to comprehend that if this omnius has an effect on other robots (if only a counceling role) which have moving parts, then you have a problem. But that if he is without any such link or no robots with moving parts exist, he is not dangerous. Can you not imagine a possible world in which computers are allowed to eg. show and tell on a screen and sound system, but allowed to directly control any machinery? And can you not see that in such a world, they could not be dangerous?


 * The point is that citizens didnt think that he was dangerous initially.


 * No it bloody well is not! Are you willfully ignoring my argument or are you just forgetting it along the way? My point was that one could have disarmed him, navigators, general-purpose computers with no danger to humanity.


 * It wasn't the people who wanted ALL machines destroyed; some didn't care. it was the Cult of Serena. Some things happen without neccessity, some people think it is neccessity and some others don't care. Plus, Faykan authorized it and he declared himself the Grand Patriarch then the First Padishah Emperor... Regardless, that is how it is in the story and there are NO problems with it except for OPINIONS (that have answers, read the book) - no facts are contradicted... and that is the point of this.... not if you like it or not... the only argument you can state here is if there is an inconsitancy with Franks original writing - I already told you that you can write that Frank was a better writer than KJA or Brian - but as long as you cannot prove that this is inconstant it IS canon.


 * Please stop just saying that there are no problems, it is the matter we are are discussig and I do not think you will sway me by repeating it over and over. Please try responding to this question: why would anyone (including the cult) want to destroy something as useful as all machines? If to purge omnius, we not just delete the software, why never make a machine again?


 * Your point is nonsensical. I don't even know what you're trying to suggest here... If it wasn't machines then why make a law against making them have life... there are guns... guns kill... but guns are controled by humans... if guns controled themselves that would be a problem. Explain a Jihad in which there was no sentient AI life? It wouldn't make sense. KJA and Brian's point is that AI life cannot be controled because it is independant of its creator. Moreover, in regards to your Cult reference, by this time, the Cult wasn't motivated by rational behavior... They just struck a blow to the sychronized worlds and Rayna thought that she had a vision from St. Serena. This is enough of a sacred notion that they go on a rampage - a n intense religious fervor. You cannot rationalize that.

>>"The human-computer replaced the mechanical devices destroyed by the Butlerian Jihad. Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind! But Alia longed now for a compliant machine. They could not have suffered from Idaho's limitations. You could never distrust a machine."

Here, machines are described as "compliant" and completely trustworthy. If they had once turned on humanity, why would someone (Alia) think of them this way?


 * Well if you've read the Legends series then you'd know that even before the end of the war against the thinking machines people had already started to forget about what they had done... Not forget what they did per sey but forget the magnitude of it. Something that can only be felt from first hand experience. Much like how people didn't know water would kill Leto II (because they forgot about the weakness of the worms or didn't put 2+2 together) and the time from the G.E of DUNE storyline to the time of Classic Dune is much less than the time between the B.J and the Classic or even the HOUSE books... If you can believe the former then why can't you believe the latter. In addition, you're forgetting that large numbers of fans who liked DUNE hated DUNE MESSIAH. John Campbell, the editor, refused to even publish MESSIAH because he disliked it so much. Many fans could not read GOD EMPEROR and gave up on the series because Frank Herbert changed his style and focus. That's a whole other story though... One which, I will not be the propogator of.


 * I do not believe it because people remember a lot about the Jihad (Leto II remembers almost everything), and yet none of them remember anything about "evil" AI and enslavement.


 * In regards to your Leto arguement - maybe he did remember but it never mentioned it in his internal dialogues because they are irrelivent - the point is the philosophical reasoning and the ban on machines in general - so it wouldn't happen again. The rest is not important to their time period since AI machines haven't existed (or so they think) for maybe about 20,000 years at the time of Chapterhouse. 13,500 at least from God Emperor.

And please remember the quote: "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed." Leto II here gives the direct cause, if there was another cause or event in between loss of humanity and purge, he would have added it or misrepresented his case by this quote. If you claim there was a war&enslavement, then you are claiming he remembered wrong or is lying.
 * We have to go by what is presented, we cannot just assume that the reason was something else, but that Leto II just did not feel like discussing that at that time. If FH believed the jihad was caused by enslavement and war, he would have let us know. As it is, he let us know that it was caused by stagnation, complacency and loss of "humanity" (all in line with Heidegger-ian phenomenologcial philosophy, which is reflected in a lot of FH's work). Why should we assume some other reason? Why put in a "war" step between stagnation and purge? We might as well put in a "teaparty" step, a "negotiations breaking down over a dropped umbrella" step or a "humans were enslaved in a matrix-like illusion" step. If BH&KJA has written one of those, would it also be "in line" with FH's universe?


 * Frank Herbert might have not wanted you to know until later on as he intended to do with the secret of the scattering. The war happened that we both agree on but I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclussive once again... What is the difference between humans with weapons and human brains in cyborg units? It is still humans using advanced technology against humans that dont use it. Those humans that did that ceased to be humans but still, at one time were humans. Omnius was created by humans as a thing to help them and it turned against them... it works.

Also note that I do not care who fought the war on the battlefield, but *why* it was fought and who they were fighting for. Was it humans vs. humans (with at least one side using machines to help them, possibly cyborged, etc.) or was it humans vs. machines (who were once human but had enslaved humanity). Again, why out in enslavement and a machine-side to the war?
 * Please try responding to my points instead of restating what you have said before. And saying that FH did not want me to know yet could be an argument for anything, including small pink mice running the universe - it is no argument for it actually being so.


 * I have responded to everything, it is you who haven't been answering my questions. Omnius is the Supreme AI intelligence. It controls all the thinking machines without human brains. Furthermore, if Brian saw fit to make small pink mice running around that would be his choice and not for you to claim that “it is not how it is supposed to be” unless he was inconsistent with his fathers original story. Now, if he were to make those "little pink mice" the predecessor of the muad'dib (desert mouse) that would be his prerogative. The argument is that Brian (as of now) IS Frank Herbert (as far as the storytelling is concerned) - once again, as long as he does not contradict with anything that his father has done.... Which, I repeat you haven't even been able to prove, even to me. I am answering these all alone and you have a team of people trying to claim outlandish things; of which I am not insulting and answering with a justifiable response. Please do not get angry at me if it is not to your liking. As long as it is possible, then it is not an inconsistency. The answer is in the Legends series. The pre-story (to the Butlerian Jihad) simplified is this... -There were a group of men and women who created a system by which they increased the length in which they could live. That did not satisfy them so they put their brains into cyborg bodies. At some point in time, these Humans created Omnius and thinking machines to do their work for them and make life easier. They then tried to take humanity over THEMSELVES. They succeeded. Then Omnius gained control but he had it in his programming that he could not hurt the Titans only. However, he was still in control of the robots and much of the systems. Humanity ran away and they kept chasing enslaving them on every planet. Somehow, a bunch of humans escaped to a bunch of planets far away and have surmounted a strong enough force to keep the machines at bay but the machine army every now and then manages to capture a planet or two. Sometimes the humans take one back but they are obviously helpless - Enter the beginning of the Butlerian Jihad.... This is vague and is only mentioned in dialogue so i'm not sure if i'm missing anything but that is the gist of it.


 * You are not responding to my points, still. And I do not have an army of people helping me, I got an asnwer from alt.fan.dune FAQ about inconsistencies, which did not include the things on the jihad I am now arguing. You say that BH is within his right to do *anything* as long as it does not directly contradict FH. Now try getting your head around this: the universe being run by pink mice would be *thematically* inconsistent with FH's novels. It would be silly and one would feel cheated. I realize this is subjective and that we disagree on whether a "evil robots" is just as bad as pink mice, so I will stick to the objective.


 * What exactly have I not responded to? you brought up the mice but i just explained how if Brian wanted to do that, how he could... and he can once again considering it IS his as much as Franks now. again, as long as there are no direct controversies with his original text.


 * Why. A. War. That is the question you have not answered. But never mind... I would like to know if there is some degree of sillyness (think Monty Python, not pink mice) that would have been too grievious for you to accept it as cannon (if it could be fitted in)?


 * Silliness?! Silliness you say... This is not silly. However, there are things that I would not want done to a story. Such as what happened in Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil, etc. Real screw-ups of the story... not a constistant change justified by evolution, a biological change, AI life... all of this in the Dune prequels are justified... The best example of something that is screwed up is Catwoman - It's the same person 'based on the character in DC comics' yet everything about her is different... Not one thing is the same... Even her name. An example from Dune is that I'm not too find of the original DUNE movie. Nor the version that would have been done by Alexandro Jodorowski; That would have been much worse and a true blasphemy but Brian and KJA are not doing that. They aren't even doing what Christopher Tolkien did to LOR... he just took his fathers original notes which had different characters + names in place of main characters. As well as re writing words that have been erased and were obviously mistakes. In any regard, that is much different than what we are talking about here. If this was the case I would be the first to concur with you.


 * The water and Leto II argument is sound, except in that case Leto II (god and emperor) was in control and could have suppressed knowledge and rewritten history (which he did). After the Butlerian jihad, who would be interested in forgetting that machines had attacked humanity? And why then, remember so much about the philosophical reasons?


 * Because remembering about the horrid experience that they went through would be embarrasing maybe but the only thing that needs to be remembered is to not have this happen again. I'm sure that it would be explained more in detail in Dune 7 + 8... Keep in mind that this is 10,000 years in the past from the point of Classic Dune - God Emperor was 3,500 years in the future from Dune and Heretics was another 1,700 years I believe. The amount of time that the BJ was from any other point in the recorded history of Dune was exponentially greater than any other flagpole part. Moreover, that was in the time of the Old Empire and too much has changed in that large amount of time. As well the records were mostly destroyed in the desperate attack of the pirana droid things. Forgive me but I read BJ in 9 hours on the plane from Greece so it all went by very fast. You should check it out :)
 * So they did not want machines back, so they set up philosophical reasons but did not tell the tale of how it went horribly wrong and almost ended humanity? I am sorry, but that is non-sensical. If the event is remembered (and it is, all through to Chapterhouse) then it would be remembered that humans had once been slaves of machines. *That* tale, the one about a downtrodden humanity retaking the universe would be the one people were musing on in Dune et al. Instead, they reflect on a philosophical point about loosing oneself in ones tools and systems, a point of Dune and other FH work which could not have been told with a war of survival against evil cyborgs.


 * Maybe Frank had not finished that part of the story yet (it is a very complex story) and was unsure of where he intended to go with it at that time. That is just a theory. I mentioned a few others too but aside from that I can't answer this question right now with the utmost assurity. Though, it's not really a a problem so much as something which is not addressed.


 * Yes, it is a problem. If there was enslavement and war with a machine-faction, why do people think of the jihad as a revolt and purge of machines, as philosophically grounded and not about survival of the species? This is a very real problem and it has nothing to do with having finished the story. In what FH did write, the jihad is fought because (some) humans do not want machines to run their lives, because that makes them less human. This is evident everywhere it is mentioned.


 * read above question


 * There is nothing in your above question that deals with this, please ty responding.


 * half of these are the same question. The answers simply for most of them are The Titans. They were originally human and to some extent still are - they have human brains - human thoughts - human feelings sometimes even - Agamemnon has a blood son - Erasmus adopts one! Secondly, the Cult of Serena went through a religious ferver in that the leader thought she got a vision from Serena which made it clear that ALL machines should be wiped out. Religion is not logical as Frank made abundantly clear in the other books.


 * Which does not address, once again: If there was enslavement and war with a machine-faction, why do people think of the jihad as a revolt and purge of machines, as philosophically grounded and not about survival of the species? This is a very real problem and it has nothing to do with having finished the story. In what FH did write, the jihad is fought because (some) humans do not want machines to run their lives, because that makes them less human. This is evident everywhere it is mentioned.


 * No. That cannot be. Then why did is specifically say to for it not to be "created in the image of the mind" as opposed to at all. It had to have been aware at some point. It makes no sense otherwise. However, you can still use your philosophical theory to this since it was humans that started this and the titans were humans... as were the Cymeks.

>>One moment he felt himself setting forth on the Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past -- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

This is Leto II remebering, note what he is eager to destroy - not an enslaver, enemy or dangerous thing but "any machine which..." - if FH had thought of this is humans vs. robots, whoever Leto is remembering would want to kill the evil robots, his captors, those things who slay his aunt or something. And there would be no philosophy lesson on why it is necessary, it would be something you just needed to do to survive. "Setting your own guidelines" is something you say to take your fate into your own hands, not when waging a war of necesity.


 * He's probably remembering right before the end of the BJ (techichally the humans had won but the machines we're just focused on surviving - I think it takes place in The Battle of Corrin - With the Cult of Serena intent on destroying anything that simulated human awareness... This too is explaied.


 * As I said above, it seems you can "fit in" this too, one could also say that later philosophical anti-machine sentiments stemmed from this Cult of Serena. But, if someone was speaking of why machines must be exterminated, why not use the best argument to his disposal: "they attacked us". I accept that you probably could contruct a history in which most or all quotes from Dune could be fitted in on a timeline based on the prequels - but the fact still remains that all evidence in Dune points to a philosophical revolt, the enslavement etc. falls to Occams razor, it is simple not a needed hypothesis any more than "god told them" or "the machines were brought down by mechas controlled by Japanese teens".


 * If the quotes could work in both of our respective theories then I don't see why we can't just merge the two together. Trust me when I say that it works. I don't like inconsistancies as much as the next guy but these are extremely minor if at all.


 * See above. Yes, you could merge the universes. You would then be calling Leto II a liar (to himself, as it is internal dialogue) and destroying a major point of Dune.


 * No not a liar. Just because he didn't reveal it in an internal monologue that you've read doesn't mean that he didn't reveal it to himself period. Maybe he realized it in the 3,500 years that were unknown to us between Children of Dune and God Emperor.


 * Maybe, maybe, maybe. You cannot base everything on "might have beens", you have to take FH seriously and assume that he has written what you need to know to understand the universe, otherwise anything goes.


 * You are basing it on that Brian is a theif and that his writing is not valid. He has as much right to it as Leto II does to be the heir to Muad'dib, as much as Octavius aka Agustus did to Caesar. Not really, but you get the point. Anything that he writes, even that which contradicts The Dune Encyclopedia; anything, except that which doesn't go with what Frank Herbert HAS WRITTEN, not what you think that he did. That said once again, although I cannot prove it myself, I can disprove you to the extent that none of this belongs here. I have read Dune, you are obviously missing some key elements to the story. I am not angry at you... I just want you to know that there is an answer. Read the books and you'll see it.


 * I am not basing it on BH being a thief, he inherited the right to make the books. What key elements of Dune am I missing, please? The part about the evil robots? And I am arguing from what FH has written, it is you arguing that "he might have changed that it later books" or "he probably did not want you to know".


 * You are missing 1) The Butlerian Jihad 2) the Machine Crusade and 3) The battle of Corrin. The answers once again are in there and I wouldn't have to tell them to you if you would have read it. You are basing this one not only the aforementioned but you are basing it on your views on this... Show me where Frank said that it was a Heideggerian philosophy entirely if at all... directly, not what you believe. Then tell me if the philosophy of society cannot change? then tell me people and things do not change and evolve themselves and I'll concur then. As well, I didn't say that he may have changed it in later books I said he may have not had a full opinion on the BJ at the time that he was writing some or all of his books - maybe it was incomplete and in notes... which seems likely. This is not real! It is a fictional story and Frank Himself has made some mistakes... but as of yet you still haven't proven that KJA or Brian has...


 * If you cannot see his (Heideggarian) points about machines in the quotes I have shown you, you are simply too young or inexperienced a reader to understand it and until you do, you will never be able to understand why there is an inconsistency. I never said anything about philosophy of a society, I am talking about the themes of the book, which is based in philosophy. You keep saying FH might not have decided exactly what the jihad was. I am claiming he did and that it is blindingly obvious from the quotes I have supplied you with. Try responding to my readings of them, instead of restating your claims. Oh, and also (another one you ignored): if someone was speaking of why machines must be exterminated, why not use the best argument to his disposal: "they attacked us".


 * Did I say that I couldn't see it? No! I said that Frank never specifically said that it was ENTIRELY a Heideggarian philosophy... look to my explaination of Thomas Hobbes. Instead of spewing things that you read on the internet, try coming up with some of your own. Pssshhh! The internet is a lie. Wikipedia should not propogate that and neither should you (if you are truely as enlightened as you claim to be). I respond to your answers and you keep asking the same questions... How many times can I answer the same question? The argument "they attacked us" is irrelivant... it should be "we made them and used them thus they attacked us"... ergo, the quote "'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind,'" as Paul quoted, and subsequently followed by saying "But what the O.C. Bible should've said is: 'Thou shalt not make a machine to counterfeit a human mind.'" Explain how it would have been otherwise. All of your information is based on that alt.dune.fan thing and that is stupid... it's completely biased and uninformed... the questions that they've asked there are the same questions that you've asked here and are easy to answer by a logical person reasoning from the pragmatic possibilities.

>>"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."

Machine-attitude! The machines usurped, not power, but "sense of beauty" and "necessary selfdom". Why would Leto II (who remembered this time) say these things if the war had been one of enslavers vs. slaves?


 * "machine attitude as much as the machines (themselves)" you're not reading it all... read the unwritten words that he is impying... Moreover, he gets the memories but not the emotions which are a great step in getting the actual answer... It could also be that it was a clouded vision.


 * Yes, the target was the "machines themselves", I am not ignoring that. The jihad was about detroying the machines, hence they were "the target". This is all obvious, but does not imply that this target tried enslaving, killing or even defended itself! I think if you read GEoD you will find he does get the memories, which this passage also attests to (eg. sense of beauty).


 * It could go either way - it doesn't not imply that the machines did not try to enslave, kill and defend itself - We can merge them :)


 * See above for more on this quote.
 * I am not saying it does not "imply that the machines did not try to enslave, kill and defend itself", but merely that is does not imply that they did. And if Leto II had memories of such enslavement and a war, then he would not have said "usurp[ed] our sense of beauty" - he would have said "but us in slave pens" or something similar. A black man in the Southern US before the civil war did not complain that he was not properly aknowledged as a human being, denied his right to decide for himself what his conception of beauty and humanity was - he would complain about being held captive and forced to work.


 * Again, because you ignored this: please respond to "sense of beauty" and "necessary selfdom" as the things lost to the machines (and not freedom or life and limp). Also note how simple it is stated here: the machines were "set up" to take over basic human functioning (like deciding what is beautiful) adn thus were "naturally" destroyed. Leto II seems to take this as a completely logical and necesarry consequence. No enslavement needed.


 * some people would consider living in and of itself a "sense of beauty" some would call it the ultimate "sense of beauty". Maybe this angered him most of all - maybe more than the enslavement by itself. Maybe people have gotten over that they were captives and tried to forget it - maybe they were embarrased. There could be many reasons for that especially in over 10,000 years and before they recounted time - before the Guild - before the BG were in their present form - before the empire that we know today.


 * So you are saying that "usurp[ed] our sense of beauty" could mean "enslaved" or "attempted extinct"? And no, people do not "get over" that they were enslaved while remembering that "machines are bad". And humanity rewriting history because they were embarrased, as a species? You are clutching at straws, here.


 * No! You are determined to disprove Brian (who has the rights to write anything he wants - as I stated with the aforementioned "little pink mice" with that one exception that you still have yet to prove enough for it to be here) when there is an answer to which you are unwilling to see.


 * Then what were you saying?


 * Usurped our sense of beauty could be life itself. You fail to see that.


 * So you are saying that "usurp[ed] our sense of beauty" could mean "enslaved" or "attempted extinct"? Actually, what you sentence is saying is that the _usurpation_ could be life, but I do not think that is what you mean - please state, in more than one sentence a bit clearer, what you believe Leto II could have possibly meant and why he did not refer more directly in this quote, in which he explains the reason for the jihad, to enslavement, psycho-cyborg-sadists and slave pens.


 * Plus you fail to see how many years have passed by. The armenians are still fighting for their genocide to be recognized. The Japanese refuse to accept their place in the Chinese genocide and Americans have long since forgotton about the extermination of the Natives - and celebrate Thanksgiving. all of these things are a shadow of the time span that is between the BJ and Classic Dune - and happened after much of the records were gone. The answers once again are in the books.


 * So any inconcsistencies we chalk up to "history" being forgetten/rewritten? Sorry, not good enough (as in that case, *anything* could be a pre-story to the Dune universe (up to and including Monty Python and the Holy Grail). We have to go by what is written.


 * Are you calling the Jews, Chinese, Armenians and Natives liars? Anything can be a pre-story to dune as long as it fits in with the story which this does. What is your obsession with Monte Python? Monte Python & The holy Grail a untruthful story in and of itself... why don't you go insulting that? This story is pretty much sound. Indeed we do go by what is written and nothing (if much - being 1 or 2 things) has been changed without a jusifiable explaination.


 * Also, you do not respond (again which is why I moved it here) to the fact that Leto II states it so clearly - stagnation (or whatever we call it) led to revolt ("so naturally..."). If there had been enslavement he would have mentioned it here, he would not be claiming that the one led so simple to the other.


 * You're assuming that Leto II is a real person. He is a fictional character. Moreover, you do not have access to EVERY memory he ever had. Maybe Frank didn't want you to know once again. Maybe he didn't finish the story. Maybe he changed it as you said. Either way Brian and KJA did not change anything that HAS been said... not what you assume that he has not.


 * So anytime FH writes something that is incongruent with BH&KJA, we are to assume that "Frank didn't want you to know" or that "he didn't finish the story". If you take that view, then *nothing* can ever be called a discrepancy, nothing. You might as well have stated this from the beginning. What, pray, would be an inconsistency? And no matter how many other memories he had, how can they counter another and render it worthless? And why would he be spending time thinking about such a worthless, misrepresenting memory? And, much more importantly (I do hope you are paying attention), why would FH include this memory if it did not tell us something about Leto II and the jihad? If you are going to assume that what he chose to view us is irrelevant, possible flawed or not quite thought out, then you are stripping him of his authorial authority (hehe) in order to hand it over to BH.


 * Authorial authority??? That's redundant... Authority should suffice... Brian's authority was handed down by Frank himself... 'tis not I who is not respecting Frank's authority on the matter here. Yes there are things that would be inconsistancies... http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=859 this would be a gross one if it were made. Some of what happened in the 1984 movie by Lynch was inconstant - ex. rain @ the end of the movie... that doesn't happen for thousands of years.

-A new (thematical) argument here: It is hard to write a book about a philosophical revolt, about Heidegger's points on humanity and for why humanity would destroy machines which made their lives easy and comfortable. It is easy to write about evil robots killing humans. I sincerely believe Frank Herbert himself would have trouble writing a good book on the Butlerian Jihad, but I do not believe he would have inserted or changed it into a machine-human war. Also note that such a war is only "filler". The complacency, dehumanization and subsequent purge is there in both original and new books - the war is just inserted in one of them. And it belittles the point about humanity rising up against their loss of soul to say they rose out of slave pens.


 * -What you're not understanding here is that The Titans putting their brains into cyborg bodies and using that as a tool would be no different than a man using an advanced weapon against another man. The philosphical point is the same. The major (thinking machine players - the creators of Omnius: The Thinking Machine) were Human; Agamemnon, Erasmus, Juno, Dante, etc... even many of the minor players... ei. the armies of cymeks.


 * -That is not "something I am not understanding", it is irrelevant. Please respond to my argument, the point of the jihad is humanity being dehumanized and rising from it, but aknowledging that machines, tools and systems can make you less than human (cf. "thou shalt not disfigure the soul", the only other commandment we hear of). So why stuff in a war, if not to have something with laserguns to write about - it serves no purpose but filler.


 * -Why not put it... You aknowledge that there was a war. right? You say that it was human vs human (with an advanced technology). A human brain put into a machine body at one point was human. right? so where did it go wrong according to you? One of the Titans, Agamemnon, even spawned a child who would be the ansestor of all Atreides before being disembodied. The machines were just a tool to be used by the Titans that turned against them. Ergo, maybe that's why the people said that: If human ignorance and greed didn't create them then they wouldnt have existed in the first place. In addition, lazguns were not used much later on - the purpose was to explain the origins of the Holtzman shields.


 * I do not care about machine bodies etc. What I care about is who fought the war and why. I claim that in FH writing the only reasonable take is this: humans, afraid of humanity loosing its "soul", rose up against the machines and destroyed them (there was fighting among humanity because some resisted having their precious machines and simple life taken, presumable machines were involved on their side). Such a backstory rehearses important themes to Dune, FHs work and its points - a space war with lots of torturing robots and inanely powerful mecha-whatevers does not.


 * Read #1 the answers above and #2 read the Legends series. The answer is The Cult of Serena and later on Faykan Butler.


 * Read my argument, you do not have to read anything else, nor do you have to refer to anything else. Please understand that this is not about the intricasies of the prequels, it is about the basic structure of their story vs FH's story. I'll make it simple: how can you believe that FH did not mean for the jihad to be how I described it above? How did you think of it when you first read it? I would really like to know this.


 * No, they are not the answer, they cannot be. The answer would have to do with showing me how the war is not a simple ploy to be able to put in exciting (to 6th graders) space ships, evil robots and torture and cyborg masters. The answer is showing how the war does not detract from FH's message about machines which is so blindingly obvious in his writing of the jihad. Just because someone wanted to purge this omnius from machines afterwards does not save this point, it has still been degraded to a sidenote as it (the "stagnation") is no longer the reason behind the jihad.


 * The titans were machines themselves... technically, if you want, the started the war before they were robots themselves. So in the begining you are right, it was a human vs human thing with one human having a technical advantage... Then they transfered their brains into robot bodies... still though, they have human brains so you can still argue that they are, to some extent human. I dont understand why you are so unwilling to accept this especially since you haven't read the books.


 * This does not address my point, try again.


 * You do not have any point - You have good intentions I think but you persist on finding flaw with Brian and KJA's work instead of seeing how it can fit into Franks vision. This is not enlightened thinking... Do not say Moreover, Frank himself created that extention in majority. Don't listen to trash that you read in forums especially alt.dune.fan or whatever... he doesn't even try to answer the questions... it's ignorance epitomized. KJA and Brian have worked hard to incorporate Franks elements into this new story. Frank made it well known that he wanted his son to do this. You are directly going against Franks last wishes; as a fan of his work how can you see how that is not an insult to his honor.

>>Thats it. I'll sign here, but I suggest you answer below each point/quote above - indenting with colons. Cheers, Lundse 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! I'll be happy to answer anymore you may have but try to look at it with open eyes instead of trying to see what you want to see and try to take into account the probability factor.

All the best!

Zeus69962 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop these kinds of attacks. I might as well claim you are not looking at it with open eyes - it gets us nowhere...


 * I assure you it wasn't an attack... It was just a request from me. You haven't read the books yourself and you are inclined to sway against it. I on the other hand, am entirely unbiased - I consider Frank the greatest scifi writer but I also like KJA and Brian's additions (I believe and intend to prove that they work and since Frank is not here to write them himself, I rather enjoyed their extentions; I think they have done a great job at putting an extremely difficult story to put together. That's it... Please do not take offense to it. I just mean for you to think about what i say before saying no, that's it. As well, Why did you put back the attacks on the FH discussion place? How would that be productive to our new pact of non aggression... lol... I hope you will see the merit in the new additions :)

Zeus69962 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Explanation accepted. I reverted the edit because it is bad form to delete another's public messages (and Justin might still report it as there is no way of deleting the fact that you tried removing it). Lundse 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I see no purpose in it being there and I don't think he has any case there considering he deleted 90% of my stuff especially all of those other questions that I answered. Moreover, I explained why I deleted it... I don't hold anything against him or you anymore, thus, I reiterate my request for it to be deleted. Plus, i did not start that conflict.


 * My advice is to take it up with him, it is mostly his and your stuff you are deleting (and I am no expert in wikiquette).


 * That's alright, I dont really care. I did not start it and the only one it is hurting is Justin. What he said about me is obviously not true considering that I am fighting this alone and there are a bunch of you trying to find any little thing you can to hit me with. Which you still haven't been able to do. I'm asking that this be civil once again and that it keep on the golden path to enlightenment and not hostility.

Zeus69962 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are not a bunch of us, I am writing this alone and before that it was me and Justin. Please find others to help you if you can... And I have "hit you" plenty of times, you just ignore it and start explaining irrelevant passages of the new books.

Moreover, you and Justin are adding to a discrepency page and you have added more to the controversy section. I thought we were going to hold off on posting things on the actual page until we agreed on what should be put there. As well, most of those "issues" i have already addressed (The sorceresses of Rossak among other things... Moreover, you're not correct in your statement about the mentats - they were designed to be better than machines. They were desgined to mimic computers and eventually to surpass them - as Gilbertus Albans did by the end of THE BATTLE OF CORRIN) in the discussion page @ Frank herberts wikisite (which you/justin deleted). This defies our nutrality agreement. It seems that you don't care about knowing the facts and persist on telling the world your view on things as if it were fact. Please stop and let's discuss any problems which you have here as YOU initially proposed.

Zeus69962 01:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have heard of noone but you willing to argue these things and I am not going to put everything on pause. You had your chance on the FH talk page, now I am giving you one here. But things are moving forward, I cannot ask everyone to stop writing until we are done, and so there is no reason we do so. If you want, we can bring in arbiters to judge this neutrally although I do not know the procedure (and I would like to see someone else argue your points, too).Lundse 02:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how many people are arguing a point. I know my facts are correct to the point that I am willing to contact The owners of the rights to this themselves. Which I have done and can do at any point in time. If you keep this up without doing it properly then I will have to report you and contact The Herbert corporation... who I'm sure would find this extremely distasteful and I'm sure conflicting with some legal rights. These things which you are putting are not the truth! This is an encyclopedia not a forum... you can't write anything you want here... In any regard, I am willing to tell you the truth or you can find someone else to do it but you have to stop putting things that you cannot prove there. It is making people believe things that are not true. Once again, I have read all of the books, you haven't... Justin hasn't... who then has? so may I ask where are you basing this from? Forums maybe?

Zeus69962 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one ignoring my points and not presenting arguments. Please feel free to contact BH and his lawyers, wikipedia could do with the publicity and I would love to reiterate these arguments in public, as it is by now blindingly obvious that you have stopped replying to them serisouly a long time ago. I will continue this discussion only if you actually try answering them.


 * What are you saying? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip tabloid. I'm sure that they wouldn't want this negative attention. What you are saying is not true. I am answering seriously but you are asking the same question in 50 different ways and saying that i'm not answering them when I have answered every one. Moreover, you are biased since you nor Justin has read the books. Then what are you basing this on?


 * I am sorry, if you sincerely believe that you have answered my questions, then there is nothing left to talk about. Please note that you keep restating claims, I keep reforming questions - I know what my questions mean and how they are based in the books, maybe you should try taking me serious when I say that your answers do not address them (I should know, they are my questions). If you do not try answering a question this time around, I am going to discontinue this discussion (may I suggest giving a reading of the Leto II quote stating that loss of humanity "naturally" led to the purge? Lundse 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What questions have I not answered? did you not read the Mentat explaination? Once again, I've read all of the books and am completely un-biased, I love Frank... More so than Brian or KJA... That doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate what Brian and KJA have done nor does it mean that they do not write well themselves. I believe that, in their own regard, compared to other writers they deserve kudos for assisting Frank expand his vision - which doesn't contradict its past - anymore at least than he did himself.

This should be the controversy section:

http://www.psychcentral.com/psypsych/Frank_Herbert#Controversies

I can concur to this.

Zeus69962 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot, it is the old version. The one which states there is no controversy. First of all, there is a controversy, this discussion and the many fans who see things my way are proof of that. Secondly, there are inconsistencies and they are not trivial. I have tried telling you this. If the above has become too muddled, go on from here:


 * Is this everything which you claim that I missed above? secondly there is no controversy and you haven't proved anything yet! Just because some people can agree some some uninformed thing does not make them right! You have not been able to show any proof of anything you claim here!!! That was the original document that you stole all this from. You just added and replaced some things with uninformed opinions that are not correct.


 * I did not steal this text, please stop attacking me with stupid things like that (it ouwld have taken 10 secs to check the history page and see it was not me). I have shown proof, you have ignored it.


 * it is the exact same text as what is in that section. Again, you as in the general term of the word. By you taking this negative stance you are speaking for all those with you... If it wasn't you initially then it was you when I deleted it and you reinstated it.


 * The jihad. Leto II states it so clearly - stagnation (or whatever we call it) led to revolt ("so naturally..."). If there had been enslavement he would have mentioned it here, he would not be claiming that the one led to the other "naturally" and without anything in between.


 * You're assuming that Leto II is a real person. He is a fictional character. Moreover, you do not have access to EVERY memory he ever had. Maybe Frank didn't want you to know once again. Maybe he didn't finish the story. Maybe he changed it as you said. He is probably refering to the allowed enslavement of the Zensunni people by humans - I believe the Tlelaxu. This is because they did not want to participate in the war against machines and were forced to help by enslavement. Probably a social reference to army conformity. Either way, Brian and KJA did not change anything that HAS been said... not what you assume that he has not.


 * This is insane, are you saying FH refered to the enslavement of the zensunni in a passage which does not use the words "zensunni" nor "enslavement"?

-Eventually, it is revealed that the Bene Tleilax culture is a religious society based entirely on the Zensunni religion, and in the final works of the Dune series, members of the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood portray themselves as Zensunni believers in an attempt to manipulate Scytale, the last surviving member of the Tleilaxu. This is probably a play on how the Roman religion was changed by Judaism, and then Christianity (in a much higher intencity) later on, that they themselves took the claim to its source as the Vatican does. Anyone can claim any theory that they want but none of it is true unless Frank or Brian declare it themselves... Notice how Brian's name is there too because he counts too... as long as it's not contradicting with anything it isn't wrong. Read the books, I am not going to tell you the whole story word for word or theme for theme but it's all answered.


 * I have no idea what you are arguing, seems you are just spouting facts from the books.

I found another quote on this: "They [Ixians] made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter." Making devices in the image of the mind ignited the jihad - the *making*, not the device's enslavement of humanity.


 * The slaughter didn't ignite it... Them taking over humanity.. them stealing life was the ignition. the rest came after - READ THE WHOLE TEXT - not a part of it.


 * I know what the tezt claims. I am saying FH says something else? Are you not understanding the basic premise of my argument?


 * nope


 * BG psychic powers (and invisibility). If there had been psychic powers, they would have had to be removed somehow by the time of Dune, how did this happen. If BG could hide in shadows like they could in HH (?), why could Jessica not do so in Dune, or others in later books?


 * The "psychic powers" of the sisters of Rossak, when used killed them. Thus, it would be detrimental to their current health to use it.


 * But not to have the ability... And thus, it would not disappear by evolution.


 * Honored Matres-> sexual power later on in the series... suffice it to say it is exactly the same. Gain trait - loose trait. Leto II worm body, flippers. gained all that and lost his puny body. etc... do you get it now?


 * Secondly, the only reason that they did use it was because circumstances were so dire. In most occassions, they chose not to use it unless they had to. Secondly, the reason that they don't have it anymore is evolution. The dropping of redundant traits to make room for new ones. 10,000 years has past by.... How much could a collective people change in 10,000 years. Are you telling me that some new powers couldn't be discovered and others lost? because I can give you many examples of things (actually EVERYTHING - as well that was a major theme in FH's DUNE) that have went through this process in real life including humanity itself. I've answered this quesion already.


 * So your argument, once again, is that "it might have changed"? How many times can this save BH? Seriously, if he had written that the universe exploded could it also just "have changed"?


 * Yup! It's his Universe to destroy. I don't say that i'd like it and I'm sure he wouldn't because that would go against the golden path laid out by Leto II in which humanity's survival is ensured... but remember that the BG were unsure as to if he was correct as were many others so that could be his loophole right there. Either way as long as he has plausability you cannot question that. Question the historians in the fictional Universe. If you are angered it is they who have angered you so. You are making it seem as if this fiction is real. Yes the facts are real but Brian did not disturb them (not anymore than his father did).


 * Why did FH write of mentats as a response to the lack of computing power (likening to the guild as a response to the need for navigators and the BG as responding to the need of guidance for humanity) if they were a robot torture-experiment? And why have and accept a guild monopoly when they knew how to make a machine-navigator (and presumably would be able to refrain from giving it machinegun arms?)


 * Your view of the new books is wrong. Erasmus made Gilbertus Albans to be better than both humans and machines. Thus, it does not conflict with anything. They are better than machines. Gilbertus Albans was the first Mentat. Moreover, there was no torture involved. At least not for most of it. I dont understand your second question about the guild monopoly.


 * No you don't. Neither did you understand the first one... Try reading it again.


 * does this answer you? 1)initially Gilbertus was an experiment but when machines were beaten, it became a necessity. 2)The machine navigators were flawed. Real navigators were almost assured to reach their destination. Remember that it isn't the navigators themselves which can bend space, they only see the clear path.


 * These points are enough in themselves, nowhere above have you actually tried addressing them. You keep muddling the waters, throwing in explanations which only tell me eg. how the enslavement came about - but my point is that people keep talking about it as if it never was there.

Lundse 10:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I have answered everything... If i missed anything than put it down here... don't count Justin's deletion of my answers as me not answering because i have answered it all. Anything that I cannot answer will probably be addressed in the next 5 books that are comming out including the Paul of Dune series. As well, you are unwilling to accept Brians writing and that is not an inconsitancy as much as an opinion... which shouldn't be in wikipedia. People do not talk about it as if it weren't there... the principle is still there. The war happened.. that they know... the details are sketchy... well over 10,000 years has past by - can you tell me what happened accurately (with the utmost assurity) 10,000 years ago?

Zeus69962 18:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I maintain that you have not answered me. You have restated you opinions, but never truly addressed the points I reaised. If you do not do so, I cannot think of this as an discussion and thus see no time wasting my time on it.

Here is a quote that I found in Dune: The Battle of Corrin (2004)that explains it briefly.

"The gravest error a thinking person can make is to believe that one particular version of history is absolute fact. History is recorded by a series of observers, none of whom is impartial. The facts are distorted by sheer passage of time and - especially in the case of the Butlerian Jihad - thousands of years of humanity's dark ages, deliberate misrepresentations by religious sects, and the inevitable corruption that comes from an accumulation of careless mistakes. The wise person, then, views history as a set of lessons to be learned, choices and ramifications to be considered and discussed, and mistakes that should never again be made." o PRINCESS IRULAN, preface to the History of the Butlerian Jihad

Zeus69962 23:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, it does not explain anything. If we are to follow the advice in that quote (which I see no particualar reason for doing as we have no way of knowing whose views it represents - FH did have his characters say things he did not understand, you know) then we would have to hold no view at all on the question at hand. This is an encyclopedia, we have to state some things as facts (or at least possible truths, with alternatives, etc). Lundse 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It serves to show the way history was distorted. Must I draw you a picture? The Ilyad is a great example of a history tainted with stories, poems, song, myth... see the similarities... Why must you be so defiant! I admire the fire for FH's work but use it in a positive way. Star Wars ripping off Dune and getting much of the glory is another example of something that I am against... Put your energy into that. I'm all for that! No facts have been in error there.

Look here for a fire to start you

http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/dune.html

Since you like forum junk so much... this forum junk is at least correct with regards to its view on the similarities of Dune and Starwars.

Zeus69962 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)