Sign in to follow this  
prometheus59650

Episode 1.12 "Vaulting Ambition" Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Why does she have an obligation to stop it? Isn't the Defiant MEANT to go back? How do we know that, if the Defiant doesn't go back, it doesn't create a negative chain in the primeline?

Maybe McCoy's cure for the effects of Tholian space is the basis for treatments for all sorts of biological/biochemical nerve agents. Or a new class of anesthetics? Or even new psychotherapy drugs. 

Things that now will not happen Because Burnam will have prevented the ship from going through the interphasic rift as they were meant to. What if a now saved Defiant inadvertently starts a war with the Romulans or something because that crew is now in a specific time and place that they wouldn't have been otherwise?

Everyone is best off if primeline Discovery leaves and leaves the MU as untouched as possible.

Kind of where I’m at with this.  

Besides, we have NO idea if the ship ever truly makes it back to the prime universe (or DSC’s version of it, anyway...).

10 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Culber: The impression I got on my first watch was that he was dead dead dead, and this was his last appearance. BUT, Culber had the same infection on his arm as Mirror Stammets. He talked about how Stammets has to save the network and therefore "save us." If these scenes were just a narrative trick we aren't supposed to think about too hard--ie, is Culber a ghost? a sprit from the afterlife, etc?--why did they have him show the same infection as the very much alive MU Stammets? It must be significant right?  

While I would love to have Culber come back in some Star Trek, resurrection-ish way, I don’t want him as some kind of spirit or ‘force ghost’ version of himself.  That’s crossing a quasi-religious line that I think the show is wise to avoid.   Even Spock’s katra in ST3 was shown to be the essence of his intellect and life experiences, and not really his ‘soul.’  

10 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Tyler: the DISCO doctor described Tyler as a Klingon implanted inside of a human. L'Rell described Tyler as Voq being turned into a Human "shell." Saru describes him as a part Klingon part Human "tormented creature". Which is it? We don't know until there is a more definitive answer. 

Yeah, I was a bit confused by this as well;  at first I thought he was a surgically altered Klingon (ala Arne Darvin), based on a living template of a real Ash Tyler.  Now?  I have no idea.  They seemed to have deliberately vagued this one up a bit...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

 

While I would love to have Culber come back in some Star Trek, resurrection-ish way, I don’t want him as some kind of spirit or ‘force ghost’ version of himself.  That’s crossing a quasi-religious line that I think the show is wise to avoid.   Even Spock’s katra in ST3 was shown to be the essence of his intellect and life experiences, and not really his ‘soul.’  

 

You might be in for disappointment. Maybe this Culber stuff is what Herberts was thinking about when he said season 2 will explore themes about faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Justin Snead said:

You might be in for disappointment. Maybe this Culber stuff is what Herberts was thinking about when he said season 2 will explore themes about faith.  

This.

I expect Stamets will still have a connection to the spore network of some kind and will still connect to Culber's force ghost from time to time that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prometheus59650 said:

This.

I expect Stamets will still have a connection to the spore network of some kind and will still connect to Culber's force ghost from time to time that way.

Well, if they explain that his mind or persona is somehow 'trapped' in the mycelium network, I could sort of buy it; the same way I bought pah wraiths and prophets in DS9.  Or how mind-melds were used to explain away Vulcan 'katras.'

But what I'm concerned about is the show taking a literal stand in favor of a concrete Judeo-Christian sort of afterlife; that's what I mean by crossing a quasi-religious line.  

Roddenberry was pretty adamant about the show remaining agnostic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Well, if they explain that his mind or persona is somehow 'trapped' in the mycelium network, I could sort of buy it; the same way I bought pah wraiths and prophets in DS9.  Or how mind-melds were used to explain away Vulcan 'katras.'

But what I'm concerned about is the show taking a literal stand in favor of a concrete Judeo-Christian sort of afterlife; that's what I mean by crossing a quasi-religious line.  

Roddenberry was pretty adamant about the show remaining agnostic. 

I can see how Stamets transferred Culber's katra into the spore network when they hugged. Culber gives him advice from time to time. Culber wouldn't be a ghost of some kind, he'd be another in a long list of non corporeal beings. 

I really would hate to see Star Trek go the way of Star Wars into a quasi religious nonsense. The religious nonsense is why I never liked Star Wars. I'm a firm believer that if you can't observe it or measure it (directly or indirectly) in any way, it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind exploring how love would change and evolve when the relationship changes because one of the lovers becomes non corporeal. 

They never really showed what living as a non corporeal being would be like. They were usually either the bad guy of the week or a plot macguffin.  I wouldn't mind seeing a plotline spread over multiple seasons where Stamets slowly loses Culber because he slowly become more and more involved in the non corporeal existence. They still love each other but the corporeal world slowly becomes too small for Culber and they drift apart. 

Edited by scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Well, if they explain that his mind or persona is somehow 'trapped' in the mycelium network, I could sort of buy it; the same way I bought pah wraiths and prophets in DS9.  Or how mind-melds were used to explain away Vulcan 'katras.'

But what I'm concerned about is the show taking a literal stand in favor of a concrete Judeo-Christian sort of afterlife; that's what I mean by crossing a quasi-religious line.  

Roddenberry was pretty adamant about the show remaining agnostic. 

In whatever manner Star Trek: Discovery touches upon faith, I highly doubt it will depict it in a Judeo-Christian manner.  As Star Trek has often treated the boundary between faith and science in a quasi-scientific manner (as with "the prophets" on DS9 actually being non-linear non-corporeal aliens), I anticipate Star Trek: Discovery is trying to do the same thing with the "mycelial network."  They may imply that the mycelial network spreads throughout the universe connecting the living and the dead in "subspace" or wherever the spore network is supposed to be.  Scientifically, fungi does act as a unique sort of bridge between the living and the dead.  It would seem to me that Star Trek: Discovery is taking that scientific principle and adding a thick layer of mysticism to it. 

Out of curiosity, I did a Google search of "Paul Stamets, fungi, and faith" and came across this passage from a book entitled Soil and Sacrament, by Fred Bahnson, which cites Paul Stamets work:

"“[T]he relationship with fungi to life as we know it goes back for nearly 450 million years.  Indeed, without mycelium, there would be no life at all. * * * The relationship works like this:  the fungus penetrates a plant’s roots and provides the plant with nutrients and water from the surrounding soil, which the fungus accesses through its mycelial network.  The fungus in return receives starches from the plant.  When mycelium grows out into the surrounding soil it is said to 'run,’ and in doing so it not only forms symbiotic relationships with single plants, it provides links between plant species.  In 1964, two North Canadian scientists chopped down a red maple tree and poured radioactive liquid into the stump.  Eight days later they found that, within a radius of twenty-two feet, the leaves of nearly half of all the trees, shrubs, vines, and herbs contained radioactivity; mycelium provided the pathway through which the radioactive material spread.  The experiment confirmed fungi’s link to every living thing.  And every dead thing.  Fungi are our biological go-betweens to the world beyond animate life.  And like monks at prayer, fungi do their best work in darkness.”

All that talk of the "mycelial network" and "the world beyond the animate life" seems all too familiar.  Is Star Trek: Discovery trying to imply there is a mycelial network that binds all living things, providing a pathway through which every living thing is connected to the dead, as a "biological go-between between the world beyond the animate life"?  Quite possibly what they are doing.  Star Trek at its quasi-scientific best?  or worst?  That will be for fans to debate, if this is how it indeed plays out.

Edited by Locutus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this