"A. E. Van Vogt - The World of Null-A" - читать интересную книгу автора (Van Vogt A E)

he used it, did not have a lofty or symbolical thought connotation. It meant, "to abstract from", that
is, to take from something a part of the whole. His assumption: in observing a process of nature,
one can only abstract-i.e. perceive-a portion of it.
Now, if I were a writer who merely presented another man's ideas, then I doubt if I'd have had
problems with my readers. I think I presented the facts of General Semantics so well, and so
skilfully, in World of Null-A and its sequel that the readers thought that that was all I should be
doing. But the truth is that I, the author, saw a deeper paradox.
Ever since Einstein's theory of relativity, we have had the concept of the observer who-it was
stated-must be taken into account. Whenever I discussed this with people, I observed they were
not capable of appreciating the height of that concept. They seemed to think of the ob-server as,
essentially, an algebraic unit. Who he was didn't matter.
In such sciences as chemistry and physics, so precise were the methods that, apparently, it did
not matter who the observer was. Japanese, Germans, Russians, Cath-olics, Protestants,
Hindus, and Englishmen all arrived at the same impeccable conclusions, apparently bypassing
their personal, racial, and religious prejudices. However, everyone I talked to was aware that, as
soon as members of these various nationalities or religious groups wrote history-ah, now, we had
a different story (and of course a different history) from each individual.
When I say above that "apparently" it didn't matter in the physical sciences, or the "exact
sciences" as they are so often called, the truth is that it does matter there also. Every individual
scientist is limited in his ability to abstract data from Nature by the brainwashing he has received
from his parents and in school. As the General Semanticist would say, each scientific researcher
"trails his history" into every research project. Thus, a physicist with less educational or personal
rigidity can solve a prob-lem that was beyond the ability (to abstract) of another physicist.
In short, the observer always is, and always has to be a "me "... a specific person.
Accordingly, as World of Null-A opens, my hero-Gil-bert Gosseyn-becomes aware that he is not
who he thinks. He has a belief about himself that is false.
Now, consider-analogically, this is true of all of us. Only, we are so far gone into falseness, so
acceptant of our limited role, that we never question it at all.
... To continue with the story of World: Not knowing who he is, nevertheless, my protagonist
gradually becomes familiar with his "identity." Which essentially means that he abstracts
significance from the events that occur and gives them power over him. Presently he begins to
feel that the part of his identity that he has abstracted is the whole.
This is demonstrated in the second novel, The Players of Null-A. In this sequel story, Gilbert
Gosseyn rejects all attempts at being someone else. Since he is not con-sciously abstracting in
this area (of identity), he remains a pawn. For a person who is rigidly bound by identifica-tions with
what might be called the noise of the universe, the world is rich and colorful, not he. His identity
seems to be something because it is recording this enormous number of impacts from the
environment.
The sum total of Gosseyn's abstractions from the en-vironment-this includes his proprioceptive
perceptions of his own body-constitutes his memory.
Thus, I presented the thought in these stories that memory equals identity.
But I didn't say it. I dramatized it.
For example: a third of the way through World, Gos-seyn is violently killed. But there he is again at
the begin-ning of the next chapter, apparently the same person but in another body. Because he
has the previous body's memories, he accepts that he is the same identity.
An inverted example: At the end of Players, the main antagonist, who believes in a specific
religion, kills his god. It is too deadly a reality for him to confront; so he has to forget it. But to
forget something so all-embracing, he must forget everything he ever knew. He forgets who he is.
In short, no-memory equates with no-self.
When you read World and Players, you'll see how con-sistently this idea is adhered to and-now