Star Trek

For the third time you've misunderstood my use of the word "restore".

I've never once mentioned "exactly restored". When you restore an old car or painting they can never be exactly the way it was when it was first made. The Guardian at the end of City on the Edge of Forever says "Time has resumed it's shape, all is as it was before." That's basically saying "restored". Half of my point in the very beginning is actually what you've said in your last thoughts - if the '09 movie is a new universe then everything goes. I never took a stance on which category the '09 movie should be in. The other half of my point which I've said from the onset is that IF the '09 movie falls into the category of City on the Edge of Forever then there would be a need to "restore". Especially since the resources of a whole planet is far greater than that of a colony & the Vulcans' relationships with all other races would be completely different. Add in the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional". Due to their population size & state of mind they are diffrent diplomatically, scientifically, etc.  All of this will completely change their contributions to history.

From beginning to end I'm just mentioning an "either/or + results" comment on the '09 movie.

Definition of the word "RESTORE" as it applies in this context

re·store/riˈstôr/
Verb:    

   1. to Bring back to its previous state; to reinstate.
   2. Return (someone or something) to it former condition, place, or position.

Sorry buddy but I didnt misunderstand your use of the word, you just choose the wrong word to express what you wanted to say.There was no need to say "exactly", the words "restore & fix" imply a return to what it was before with no changes.

Anyway, I did misunderstand your over all point so for that I'm sorry, but I have a question.....

what did you mean by, " the fact that the Vulcans at the end of the movie, like Spock and Sarek, are willing to be more "emotional"????.

Granted I see that as a possibility, but nothing in the film suggested it as fact.Nu Sarek wasnt really that much emoinal then his prime universe counterpart.

I don't see "no changes" in those definitions. My example of restoring a car or painting is applicable to restoring history. It's impossible to restore a car or painting to their previous state or former conditon with "no changes", there will be at least one thing different. By definition, without "no changes" in that definition, you can restore them to their original state or former condition. You can restore history to its original state or former condition but there will be at least one thing different. So I don't see this as a wrong choice of a word. At least in my opinion.

As far as the Vulcans being more emotional, In TOS Spock asked Sarek why he married his mother & Sarek said that it was the logical thing to do. After Amanda died in the movie Sarek answered that same question differently. He said it was because he loved her, so this one is fact because a Vulcan would never say this. It was because of her death that Sarek & Spock really had to confront their emotions. If I'm not mistaken old Spock told young Spock that he should embrace his emotions or something along the lines of that, you can confirm this for me. Young Spock showed in his acting that he took to heart what his father & old Spock told him. Old Spock & Sarek should have leadership & counseling roles for the remaining population of Vulcan. I guess we'll find out which direction the filmmakers decide to go with this in the next movie.

I don't see "no changes" in those definitions.

to Bring back to its previous state;

previous state means what it was before exactly, not "close to what it was before"

 My example of restoring a car or painting is applicable to restoring history.

I dont agree.

 It's impossible to restore a car or painting to their previous state or former conditon with "no changes", there will be at least one thing different.

true, which is why I dont agree with useing the word "restore" when talking about rebuilding a car or repairing a painting.

you can restore them to their original state or former condition. You can restore history to its original state or former condition but there will be at least one thing different.

And that different thing means history wasnt trully "restored"

So I don't see this as a wrong choice of a word. At least in my opinion.

thats cool, we agree to disagree on the use of the word is all

As far as the Vulcans being more emotional, In TOS Spock asked Sarek why he married his mother & Sarek said that it was the logical thing to do. After Amanda died in the movie Sarek answered that same question differently. He said it was because he loved her, so this one is fact because a Vulcan would never say this.

And why was it the "logical thing to do"????

Because he loved her, and thats what was being said in that line.Nu Sarek only answered differently for 2 reasons,

1] because his wife just died, you might remember Sarek Prime showed as much emotion when his son died and was left on the Genisis planet.

2] JJ and the writers wanted a a line that was more "directly" understood by all.

If I'm not mistaken old Spock told young Spock that he should embrace his emotions or something along the lines of that,

sort of, but to tell the truth, he only told his youngerself to do what his long life taught him to do.come to terms with how he feels.

Young Spock showed in his acting that he took to heart what his father & old Spock told him. Old Spock & Sarek should have leadership & counseling roles for the remaining population of Vulcan. I guess we'll find out which direction the filmmakers decide to go with this in the next movie.

sorry, I think your seeing more in it then was intended.But I guess we will see in about a year

If Sarek's going to admit to loving his wife after she died then why not admit to it when she was alive? Vulcans would never say that they love someone since that's admitting to having an emotion. Since he's admitting to it after she died he is therefore more emotional by movie's end. Sarek Prime never used the word "love" so to me that showed he was less emotional. Vulcans aren't devoid of emotions but constantly suppress them instead of coming to terms with them or admitting to them. If old Spock is suggesting to come to terms with how he's feeling then that's no longer suppressing emotions. Also, I don't think that when young Spock was listening to his father & old Spock that he let what they said go in one ear & out the other. It's clear there that he took to heart what they said. Young Spock and Sarek should be more emotional by the next movie if they maintain continuity.

Sarek Prime never used the word "love" so to me that showed he was less emotional.

Sounds to me like someone hasn't seen or remembers the TNG episode Sarek was in.

Not sure what Capt. Caloocan is responding too, but I don't think that Alternate Sarek has to be any more emotional than Prime Sarek. Sure he happened to use the actual word 'love' in the movie rather than emply it like he did in TOS, but thanks to his illness in TNG we learned that he loved Amanda. In fact, to be married at least 3 times (and I say 3 because Sybok was Spock's half brother so Amanda couldn't be the mom), I'd say Sarek Prime was quite emotional...probably as a result of being ambassador to Earth.

Other than the fact that Mark Leonard had a more commanding presence as Sarek, I think the 2009 Sarek was done just right.

If Sarek's going to admit to loving his wife after she died then why not admit to it when she was alive? Vulcans would never say that they love someone since that's admitting to having an emotion. Since he's admitting to it after she died he is therefore more emotional by movie's end. Sarek Prime never used the word "love" so to me that showed he was less emotional.

thats a very limited way to view the issue, one need not say "I love you" to express love for a person.

And like wise, saying "I love you" is no indication that the person saying it understands what love is.

Sarek Prime expressed his love on more then 1 occasion

Vulcans aren't devoid of emotions but constantly suppress them instead of coming to terms with them or admitting to them. If old Spock is suggesting to come to terms with how he's feeling then that's no longer suppressing emotions.

Again, thats a very limited way to look at the issue.

Spock prime casme to terms with his feelings long ago, and he continued suppressing his emotions.

Also, I don't think that when young Spock was listening to his father & old Spock that he let what they said go in one ear & out the other. It's clear there that he took to heart what they said. Young Spock and Sarek should be more emotional by the next movie if they maintain continuity.

to coin a phrase, you conclusion is not logical.

like I sasid above, Sarek Prime expressd love on more thren 1 occasion, Spock Prime casme to terms with his feelings long ago.

neither stopped suppressing their emotions.

These are definitely not limited ways to look at these issues.

It's throughout all of the series that Vulcans suppress their emotions and they continue to do so in pursuit of being Vulcan. I'm pointing out what has already been laid out for years in Star Trek.

I do remember Sarek in TNG episodes. His illness showed that he was no longer capable of suppressing his emotions, which he did for all of his life. Vulcans can have emotions but they constantly suppress them & constantly tell themselves that everything they do is for a logical reason.

You can't come to terms with your feelings and then suppress them. It's one or the other. Coming to terms with feelings is accepting them. Once you've accepted them then you can't suppress them since there's no longer a need to do so. By suppressing emotions you're preventing yourself to accept them & also to express yourself of those feelings.

This is basic psychology. You can look it up and here's just one example.

http://bpd.about.com/od/livingwithbpd/a/accept.htm

Old Spock suggested to young Spock for him to come to terms with his feelings which is what old Spock never did. He suggested this because he saw that young Spock was already on a different path due to his mother's death.

It's mentioned throughout all of the series that for Vulcans an emotional response is not a logical one. If they do have an emotional response then they are going against everything that they are constantly training themselves for, which is to be purely logical.

Admitting to an emotion is also accepting it. Or Coming to terms with it. When they do display an emotion they won't admit to it. One example is the ending of TOS The Galileo Seven. Here Spock didn't admit to acting desperately.

Since Sarek did use the word "love" in Wrath of Khan then the writers either messed up or Sarek only gets emotional when someone dies.

It's apparent that young Spock took to heart what was told to him by old Spock & his father. Otherwise why have those scenes in the first place? The deaths of so many Vulcans should have a huge effect on the remaining poplulation, which is why they should be more emotional in the next movie. If Spock & Sarek had such a hard time dealing with Amanda's death, displaying sadness & anger, then why wouldn't this happen to the remaining survivors who would all have to deal with losing loved ones and their whole planet? If young Spock didn't lose his mother then he would end up just like old Spock, suppressing emotions while in pursuit of being Vulcan.

To beging with, Sarek wasnt in Wrath of Khan, you might want to do a bit of research or double checking before you post.

Also, your link didnt help your argument in any way, it spoke about the benifits of dealing and expressing emotions, not that its impossible to accept them and still suppress acting on them.

These do indeed seem to be limited a way to look at these issues.....and a bit naive as well.While Vulcans have  outwardly suppressd their emotions they have always expressed emotion in many ways.That was true in TOS and continued to be true in the spin offs.

Prime Sarek expressed many emotions and not just when people died.He expressed love and pride in his son, love for his wife, anger/disapointment at Kirk for leaving his son's body on a alien world, sadness/regret that his sons life cost Kirk the life of his own son, the loss of his ship , he expressed all that emotion long before his illness took hold.

Tuvok expressed agitation,frustration,annoyance and even at time, anger for Nelix.

T'pal expressed desire, even if in learning, the desire to stay with the crew of humans, disappointment in the actions of her government,

I could go on but my point is made.
 
One can certinly come to terms with your feelings and then suppress them at the same time, 20 years of marrige and being the father of 3 girls has shown me that.Not to mention that we have seen thast in Trek.Coming to terms with feelings is indeed accepting them, but it doesnt mean thsat you must act on those feeling or outwardly express them.One can come to terms with the feeling of anger, but not express any, act on it.You can accept feeling anger and still suppress it, not act on it..........and the same goes for any part of the emotinal specturm.

This is basic psychology.....any psychology teacher would tell you as much, it might not be healthy to do it all the time, but it certinly can be done. You can look it up and here's just one example.

Old Spock suggested to young Spock for him to come to terms with his feelings, which is something old Spock did long ago, or have you forgotten Star Trek 4???
Sarek asked him if he had anything to tell his mother, he replied "tell her I feel fine "him telling his father  in choosing starfleet as a life he was choosing to go with his feel..........I can provide pleanty of more examples, but that one proves my point best.Old Spock only told young Spock to do what it took longer for him to do himself....and that was the reason for the scene.

Vulcans may have said an emotional response is not a logical one..........but yet they did so at just about every chance.The deaths of so many Vulcans should have a huge effect on the remaining poplulation, but its hardly any reason for them to stop suppressing their emotions as you suggest.

I'm sorry but I'll say it again, acting more emotinal may be a possibility, but none of your examples indicat that as a certinly.

It's throughout all of the series that Vulcans suppress their emotions and they continue to do so in pursuit of being Vulcan. I'm pointing out what has already been laid out for years in Star Trek.

Not throughout all the series. ENT depicts Vulcans who are hypocritical, bygots and with a sense of superiorty that can only come from egotism. Add to that the fact that save for Spock, Sarek, Sybok, Saavik, Valeris, Surak and the episode Amok Time, we never get an accurate picture of how Vulcan act as a race during the TOS Era. Who's to say that have compltely changed their ways in the past century and now devotely follow the path of Surak, or there are still fragments that have not been brought it. Also, most of what has been laid out about Vulcans in Star Trek for the TOS Era is from an outsider's point of view...what the Vulcans want known.

And I'd like to pint out that save Sarek and arguably Valeris, what we get from 23rd Century Vulcans is a much more emotional group than 24th Century Vulcans, by their own standards of course.

you know, when you think about it I think we saw a good emount of emotion from the 24th century vulcans as well.

Tuvok shows some emotions very often.

Tallera from TNG's Gambit diaplayed a wide range of emotions

Solok from DS9's ,Take Me Out to the Holosuite, showed feelings of superiorty,smugness, confusion and fustration

If you accept that you're angry then you're admitting it to yourself, whether you express it outwardly or not. Not acting on it doesn't mean that you're suppressing it. A Vulcan won't admit to being angry and instead he'll tell himself that it's illogical to have this emotion. When they suppress it they push it away from their minds. Once you accept/admit to it then it's going to stay with you whether or not you express it outwardly. You still have to deal with your anger one way or another instead of trying to push it out of your mind. Vulcans have always shown displays of emotion but like I've mentioned earlier, when Vulcans do display an emotion they won't admit to it. Since they won't admit to emotions then they're not accepting it, which is also coming to terms with it. This is basic psychology. Vulcans strive to be like Data in TNG but they truly can't be. Data mentioned to Spock that Spock has abandoned everything that Data is pursuing. That little conversation between them really defined what Vulcans are all about. They can show emotion, not admit to them, & strive to be like Data all they want & never really get there.

If you accept that you're angry then you're admitting it to yourself, whether you express it outwardly or not.

Which is my point here.You claimed that Sarek saying he loved his wife proves he going to start acting more outwardly emotional............and your wrong.One can accept, admit emotion to one's self with out acting on it, while still suppressing it.

Not acting on it doesn't mean that you're suppressing it. A Vulcan won't admit to being angry and instead he'll tell himself that it's illogical to have this emotion.When they suppress it they push it away from their minds

Correction, they just dont push it out of their minds with little to no effort.......when they suppress it they are admitting and accepting the emotion,A Vulcan doesnt publicly admit to the emotions, but still admits it to him/herself that the emotion exsists and that it must be suppressed.

Suppression is a deliberate act that must be chosen on, and it take a great amount of will to suppress any emotion, you cant choose to suppress emotion with out accepting and admiting that it exsist and must be suppressed.

Vulcans have always shown displays of emotion but like I've mentioned earlier, when Vulcans do display an emotion they won't admit to it.

Again, they dont publicly admit to it, but they cant suppress it with out admiting it and accepting it to themselfs.

Data mentioned to Spock that Spock has abandoned everything that Data is pursuing. That little conversation between them really defined what Vulcans are all about. They can show emotion, not admit to them, & strive to be like Data all they want & never really get there.

Thanks for proving my case.

How did that conversation end????????, with Spock saying he had "NO REGRETS".........which is a human emotional expression.Regret is called by some in the psychosocial field of study as "The Cruelest Emotion" So, according to you, the conversation that defines WHAT a Vulcan is all about, was a conversation that Spock admitted to understanding the emotion of regret.

And you really cant understand an emotion like Regret with out one experancing it.No less, Spock, indirectly, amitted to having feelings of Regret with involving Kirk and his crew when he helped the Klingons.

That little conversation between them really defined what Vulcans are all about.

Without adding to much, that little conversation really defined what SPOCK was all about, not the entire Vulcan population. To addandone it must me that one fully had it. Most Vulcans, as stated previously, don't allow themselves to fully experiance or express emotions, therefore they do not posses what Data is after.