Emlyn emlyn@one.net.au wrote:
>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.
Yes, it was Plato; and no, I am not proposing a ruling elite of guardians,
for as the saying goes "Who guards the guardians?"
>If you are going to become one....
Yep. It's the logical extension of all Transhumanism.
>...you either envisage being such a guardian,
>or maybe raising everyone up to equal status.
The latter.
>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.
I disagree. It is Olympian. A society of Gods. Such Gods are defined as such
by the
traditional attributes of divinity: immortality, omnipotence, omniscience,
and so forth.
I rather the fancy the idea of Zeus Eleutherios, "Zeus the Liberator."
>Basically, the concept of God is all about authority, control, dominance.
That's your concept, not mine. Different definitions define our differences.
>Gods will not help us where we are going. But they could seriously stuff
>things up.
Godhood is precisely where we are going, as I defined it above. Some of us
might get there before others. If I get there before you, Emlyn, would you
like a hand up and some friendly advice, or shall I let you take the long
way 'round and arrive later after much unnecessary travail? I believe in
free will and so will not compel you to join us on Olympus. But I would be
delighted to help you if I can.
Regards,
Michael LaTorra
mike99@lascruces.com
mlatorra@excite.com
3229 Risner Street
Las Cruces, NM 88011-4823
USA
505.522.5121
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:29 MDT