In a message dated 4/27/00 4:21:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
> i guess i envy rationalists in a way and find it confusing how they can
> a great deal of human experience through logic.
I consider myself a "rationalist", but don't mean to "deny" "human
experience" in other modes of being and knowing. There are modes of love and
awe and beauty and wonder that are not "rational", per se, and I think any
life worth living must encompass and cultivate such facets of being and
doing. What marks a rationalist, however, is the distinction of these modes
from "truth" in the narrow, empirical, testable sense. Rationalists apply a
critical analysis to truth statements not possible - or at least only
partially possible - in these other modes. Thus a rationalist may well judge
one bridge as more beautiful than another, but doesn't mistake that aesthetic
judgment for one concerning the bridge's strength (although the two judgments
may well be intimately interconnected).
> 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 ;-)~
I don't think it's possible to "transcend logic". Logic is the very fabric
of reason. But it IS possible to understand that logic and reason are not
all there is to a life worth living.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<email@example.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:00 MDT