RE: Useless hypotheses

From: Harvey Newstrom (
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:47:35 MST

J. R. Molloy wrote,
> That's not what I had said at all.
> You may feel it necessary to twist things around so that you can
> more easily
> disagree, but that doesn't really help to understand anything...

I don't mean to twist your words around. Since you refuse to give an
answer, I can only guess at your meaning.

> I invite you to read the definitive commentary, _Mind Is A Myth_, by U. G.
> Krishnamurti.

Thanks, I read the copy at <>. It
seems to be standard Eastern Mysticism. All life is an illusion, all effort
is struggle, all seeking is faulty, and answers are false. Science is a
false religion, Logic is a false dogma, Life is an illusion, Death is not
real, the Self does not exist, etc. I certainly understand how this
religious belief would make you reject mind and consciousness as useless
hypothesis. What I don't understand is how you can support any of the
Extropian Principals without rejecting them as illusions or pointless

This book explains that we should not seek immortality, an end to disease,
an end to war, or any scientific investigation, because there is nothing to
save, nothing to cure, nothing to end, nothing to find. Everything is an
illusion, so trying to understand anything in any way is just another false
religion. As such, psychology of the mind, logic of thought, experiments on
the body, investigation of science and exploration of the universe all
become false religions with no more validity than any other false illusion.
Only by realizing that everything is false do we know the truth.

Thanks but no thanks. I think I will stick to logic, reason, and the
scientific method to determine whether hypotheses are useful or not.

Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <>
Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <>
Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <>
Cofounder, Pro-Act <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:28 MDT