Re: Gematria, Cryptology, and Extropic Mysticism

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@isis.aurinia.com)
Date: Fri Nov 17 2000 - 10:20:57 MST


   In a message dated Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:54:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Nicq
   MacDonald <namacdonald@stthomas.edu> writes:

   << > The future of science and technology are not mystical, not magick,
not>
   mysterious.

>>Arthur C. Clarke would disagree with that statement...<<

   Where? If it's the line (to paraphrase)about a sufficiently advanced
   technology being indistinguishable from science -- you should tried
reading
   it more closely. A more primitive civilization would mistake the advanced
   technology for magic, just like a Bronze Age warrior would think a gun is
   magic. For the wielders of said technology, it wouldn't be -- they would
know
   exactly how and why it works. The future is mysterious to us because we
   haven't see it yet.

>>Anyway, since when is our destiny of a mundane nature? This notion has
   only been commonly believed for a very short duration of humanity's
existence-
   I'd also argue that this notion is purely transitionary, a kind of
collective
   "dark night of the soul" (as a mystic would put it) before our initiation
   into the Transhuman existence...<<

   During that "short duration," more human progress has been achieved than
in
   all of previous human history. Apparently, this "dark night" really
produces
   results! I fervently pray (to a non-existent God) that this never ends.
   Before we started stripping the world from its mystical-religious
trappings,
   we lived huddled in the dark, utterly helpless before the forces of
nature.
   No thanks.

> A transhuman is not supernatural.

>>We don't know this. I, for one, think that it must be... if this
wasn't
   the case, we would certainly be awash in signals from alien civilizations
and
   others that still live tied to their mundane existence, eternally
expanding,
   conquering, warring... remember, there were numerous second-generation
stars
   that matured billions of years before our own Sun, and odds are that in a
   self-organizing universe many intelligent races could have developed and
   eventually reached their own singularity, in which, through technological
   means, they advanced to a state that is beyond our comprehension, and
could
   only be seen as divine. The only way we could even hope to perceive
aslight
   bit of the nature of such beings is through mystical means. Even the
   ever hard-nosed Carl Sagan proposed something to this effect in
"Contact",
   when he mentioned the idea of a species that had reached a state beyond
our
   imagination designing patterns in the physical universe that could only
be
   read through mathematical codes... maybe the Kabbalists are on to
   something...<<

   Please. The only way for us to get to understand such a species is for us
to
   *raise ourselves to that level.* If we have to approach them (assuming
the
   exist) as ignorant, trembling supplicants, we deserve whatever we get.
When
   Commodore Perry sailed into Japan with a mighty warship, the Japanese
could
   have just fallen to their knees and worshipped him. Instead, in a few
   generations they had warships of their own. Mystics simply believe their
   powers of reasoning are incapable of understanding the universe, and that
   only some esoteric means will do it. So far, science keeps kicking them
out
   of more and more realms of nature, as our observation tools and methods,
and
   our understanding of the universe, continues to grow. The track record of
the
   mystics and religionists, to put it kindly, sucks. None of their
predictions
   has ever come true.

samantha:
People that know very little about mysticism (and knowing only the
dictionary definition is VERY little) really should not presume to say what
mystics "simply believe". Some types of mystics believe that reason is
supreme and transcends its own seeming limits if applied rigorously and
honestly enough. Check out Jnana Yoga. Science for all of its acheivments
is so far up against the wall on value and "meaning of it all" type
questions and issues. Some go so far as to say that if science cannot
address these things then they do not exist! This is as blind as a
medievalist claiming that what is not in the bible is either false or not
important anyway. Mysticism/religion sucks at describing physical reality.
But then, that was not its stated intent. Foretelling the future is also
not its purpose all though some mystical/religous groups lower themselves to
acting as if it is.

> Capital 'P' Powers are not amazing or incredible, they are merely
currently
> inscrutable.

   If they're inscrutable, they very well could be amazing and incredible.
You
   don't know this- nor do I.<<

   Having, in the past, found that events and phenomena that were previously
   inscrutable (how did the sun burn, for example) have been logically and
   falsifiably explained, one can logically infer that what is now
inscrutable
   will also, eventually, be logically and falsifiably explained. To believe
   otherwise is to deny four centuries of human progress. Now, it is
possible
   that at some point we might run into a wall that science and reason
cannot
   knock down -- but if one must have faith in something, I thing faith in
   science and reason is more sensible -- they have delivered a great deal
more
   than the alternatives.

samantha:
Actually not all things believed to be true in science are falsfiable today.
>From the fact that science and technology have delivered much it does not
follow that all else is utterly pointless and to be discarded.

- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:02 MST