ok, sure, let's bring back Mannicheaism. i'm up for dualism in May.
i will admit that i am not a full atheist, nor am i a full theist.
unfortunately, i have perhaps the most inconsistent set of beliefs possible.
not only am i a theist, but i am a christian, jew, muslim, buddhist,
agnostic, and atheist. i interpret the universe aesthetically, using what
little scientific background i have sparingly. i am indecisive and unable
to simply deny any of these faiths. furthermore, it is not even a straight
shot for me - i could care less about mormonism, and mainline protestant
christianity really vexes me, but mostly due to the people who practice it
(and the total reliance on the bible doctrine, etc...).
i guess i envy rationalists in a way and find it confusing how they can deny
a great deal of human experience through logic.
so i am an ammateur (i don't code, i'm not a mathematician), but please do
not relegate me to some extropian/transhumanist stereotype (if indeed you
were doing so...if not, i apologize for making such an accusation).
transhumanis(m)(t) is an interesting word. what exactly does it mean?
trans - across, beyond, through - humanis(m)(t) - well, that which is human?
i mean, the word had a different meaning in the renaissance, but what did
those people know?
if we are to transcend humanity, then we must also go beyond on our own
minds and methods of thought. >> ok, that is a very profound (bad word)
statement, but i cannot possibly be the first one to have pausited thus.
i understand that humanity has never fully embraced logic, and i also
believe that logic, if somehow it is infused as a guide into a great portion
of humanity in the future (political leaders, bussiness people, techies),
could be a wonderful tool. but i am talking hypothetically about the far
future when i ask whether or not extropianism allows for the transcendence
of logic itself. i know it is impossible to imagine/conceive of such a
thought process...but that's the whole point ;-)~
ok, more than enough said.
metainfinium ad infinitum
>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: wee-little question regarding extropian philosophy
>Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
> > out of curiosity, and i do apologize for the brevity of this message,
> > extropianism allow for the human mind to evolve beyond
>My experience is that most people who say things like that aren't
>interested in something "better" than rationalism--they're interested
>in resurrecting some old dead theology that's been a proven failure
>for centuries and dressing it in new clothes.
>Certainly the existing specific methods of logic and science, and the
>specific results of them can be improved upon; but that in itself is
>rational--a rational being is simply one that seeks truth. Reality
>exists regardless of our actions or desires. A rational being is one
>whose actions are most compatible with its present understanding of
>that reality. That understanding can grow and change; but reality is
>still there, and commitment to it, rather than to any action clearly
>in conflict with it, will always be "rational", and will always be
>superior to any alternative.
>Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
>"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
>are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
>for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:54 MDT