Emlyn wrote:
>
> I was being 'orrible and flippant. But I had a point...
>
> Firstly, all this "mysticism" stuff. Gag me with a spoon!
Well, if you insist. :-)
>Special spiritual
> insight, grokking the nature of reality; where does that really get you?
Generally, a lot more integrated and peaceful. Sometimes admittedly it
can leave you simply blissed out and rather silly.
> You
> feel like it does something positive, but I think it's really just feelgood
> crud; I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show any measurable benefit of such
> epiphany.
I wouldn't be so quick to toss out as "crud" some of the central visions
of human history. Some of these visions have fueled lifes of great
importance like those of some of the greatest scientists in history.
Some of them have fueled (admittedly not always for the good) entire
civilizations. Learn from this stuff. Tap these energies if you can.
This is not all fluff.
>It sounds suspiciously like the idea of psychedelic drugs
> "expanding your consciousness". The idea appeals (at least under the
> influence of them, as far as I recall), but it's pretty much meaningless in
> any tangible context. In the end, this stuff is the enemy of rational
> thought, basically by definition.
>
Do you think then that rational thought is wholly and completely
sufficient for all occassions and purposes?
> Secondly, and more importantly; this idea of building God for ourselves is
> downright dangerous. The god meme has appeal; it's nice to believe that
> there's a point to the universe, after all (delusional as that may be). By
> extension, when you decide there isn't a God (or a Sysop), then it can seem
> like a good idea to make one, or become one.
>
>
What the heck do you think building a Singularity is if not giving a
tremendous "point" to the Universe or at least to human history? If
there is no point then the only point is what we decide to make a point
of. yes?
> What does that mean, though? If you are going to build a do-it-yourself
> guardian (in the sense of Plato - it was Plato, wasn't it?) then I think
> that's bad news; the best outcome we can hope for is failure. It's also
> bloody arrogant.
>
If there is no God and mysticism is crud then in what context or in
reference to what set of (presumably) rationally defined values is it
"bloody arrogant"? Particularly if we are all the intelligent life
there is (as far as we know) then it would be a great shame if we didn't
produce something for all the bother.
> If you are going to become one, you either envisage being such a guardian,
> or maybe raising everyone up to equal status. In the guardian case, the same
> arguments apply as above. In the egalitarian case, where is godhood? It's
> more powerful beings, sure, but a society of such. So the concept of God is
> not useful in that context.
>
The concept of a world of abundance, a world where many of todays
horrors are things of the past (although who knows about new horrors?) a
world where death is a thing of dim memory and the cosmos opens up
before our expanded sentience is quite compelling and is as much of a
"heaven on earth" as anything in any scripture. Godhood is a relative
thing in such a case. As minds merge and become ever more powerful I
suspect you reach a Singularity of such dimensions that the result will
satisfy any and all non-contradictory tests of God-hood that can be
devised.
> Basically, the concept of God is all about authority, control, dominance.
> The ideas of benign rule, divine right, perfection. If you have any kind of
> individualist streak, these are anathema.
>
That is one view of God is about. It is certainly not universal, not
even among the world's major religions.
> Gods will not help us where we are going. But they could seriously stuff
> things up.
So you're not objecting so much because you thing a god is impossible as
because you think it would be a singularly bad thing (tm) if/when we
manage to create one? cool.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:20 MDT