Re: Erik's Fallacy

E. Shaun Russell (
Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:14:37 -0700

Erik wrote:

>Don't you think that Webster's is a valid reference for defining a cult?
>I don't care about what you think a cult is or should be, I care about what
>it is defined to be, and by this general definition, Extropy is a cult.
>Period. Maybe transhumanism is a cult, too, and the red-goo baseball players
>are also cultish. Cults are part of culture.

So again, a post comes down to semantics. According to Erik's
citations of Webster's dictionary, Extropy --not to mention *any* formed group
with objectives-- can be defined as a cult. However, how the use of this term
is received by the majority of people, is usually negative. The word has
too much baggage to be used loosely like it has been in recent discussion.
As a result, why use *this* word --which is potentially harmful to the
public view of extropy-- when many other words would do just fine? Is
there a good reason
to repeatedly use the word "cult?"

E. Shaun Russell Musician, Poet, Extropic Artist
==============================> Transhumanities editor for Homo Excelsior
Kineticize your potential.