Re: Erik's Fallacy

Joe E. Dees (
Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:07:10 +0000

> To:
> From: "E. Shaun Russell" <>
> Subject: Re: Erik's Fallacy
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:14:37 -0700
> Reply-to:

> 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?"
> "The Guru Papers : Masks of Authoritarian Power" by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad
is a thorough and comprehensive study of cults, their leaders, and
the human tendencies which predispose many people to submit to cult
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> E. Shaun Russell Musician, Poet, Extropic Artist
> ==============================> Transhumanities editor for Homo Excelsior
> Kineticize your potential.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------