RE: Gematria, Cryptology, and Extropic Mysticism

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Wed Nov 15 2000 - 14:46:58 MST

Matthew Purdon wrote:
> As for mysticism, I agree with your statement:
> >Where it may be
> >helpful is on the emotional level, in getting a feel for how
> wonderful
> >the universe is or how we ourselves fit in with it.
> That is why mysticism has power to generate insight. It
> centers you in the
> universe so you can connect with you deep will. I think that mystical
> practices are necessary to strengthen that part. Once you
> have the insight,
> than yes, follow it and test it rationally. But when I go to
> my rational
> thought for insight, all I get is a bunch of weighing pros
> and cons and feel
> de-centered.

I agree. I learned ways of centering and seeing more holistically from
various forms of meditation and mysticism. The unscientific and
anti-rational parts of most mystical systems are definitely a problem. But
it is not an all or nothing package deal. There are things in some of these
systems very much needed and useful in life.

> After reading the extropian principles, I understand the need to put
> emotions and insight in their proper place. However, it
> seems to me that
> there's too much minimization of those too qualities of human
> life. Yes,
> much of human experience and history has been plagued by
> unchecked emotion.
> But let's not reverse the swing in the opposite direction. I
> would prefer
> to see an understanding put forth that expresses a
> relationship between
> insight, emotion, and rational as though they were equals,
> each with their
> own realm of action. Do any extropians view it this way?

Oh yes. Thank you for bringing it up. IMHO many extropians get too
reductionistic in their thinking as the supposed price for rationality and
scientific objectivity. I find a lot of assumptions based on the state of
knowledge today and especially how we came to be through natural selection
and so on that is mapped forward onto a future where the basis for many of
those assumptions does not necessarily hold. In the future selection is
quite un-natural in that it is to some fairly large degree redefinable by us
as we redefine ourselves. We are standing in a place of tremendous
opportunity to remake ourselves and most of our everyday reality. It
requires a lot of suppleness and ability to step outside the box in order to
take maximum advantage of that opportunity. The choices are much vaster
than just a supercharged version of the same basic attitudes and concerns as
we have now. Design the reality you wish to inhabit and then see how close
you can come using science and technology.

Also, as I have mentioned before, I believe changes like going from scarcity
based economics to abundance and the vastly increased intellectual abilities
and intercommunication will change the very bedrock of much of human
sociology and psychology. Much of the current ego structure and some of the
innate drives we have evolved with will need remapping and even in part
require removal or replacing with more useful tendencies. Guess what parts
of humanity has for centuries dealt with stepping outside normal ego
boundaries and looking at things quite differently? There is quite a bit to
be learned from some parts of mysticism. We would be idiots not to mine it
where we can. That we mine it does not mean we step into its quicksands

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT