From: Mark Walker (tap@cgocable.net)
Date: Sat Jun 23 2001 - 08:53:31 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> > > > Transhumanism has no
> > > place for spirituality in their minds. That is the main reason why I
never
> > > considered myself an Extropian over the last 10 years.
> >
> I was not aware that there was a board headed by you Mike, or by
> anyone else for
> the grading of any patterns of belief held as long as the person
> is committed to
> progress and human transcendence. I see little point in
> tossing aside fellow
> travellers who believe in things (or don't believe in things)
> you or I or anyone
> else here does concerning spiritual (or much else). I think it
> is pointlessly
> fragmenting at best. It also sticks in my craw. Who the hell
> are you to play
> gate-keeper over such matters?
>
> As I've said many times on here I think it is foolish to not
> notice that the same
> deep urge to transcend the human condition that fuels much of
> science, technology
> and more specifically, transhumanism and extropianism, also
> fuels much spirituality
> and religion. That common drive, that common reaching needs to
> be captured and
> channelled in ways that actually lead us forward to the future
> we envision. Disowning
> those who chare just as passionately and who are just as devoted
> as you are because
> they have different ideas of the nature of what is real or most
> important or the best
> means of proceeding is self-defeating.
>
I agree with the substance (although I don't know about the tone) of S.A.'s
remarks. I noticed last year that the Ex site and the WTA site have almost
an identical definition of 'transhumanism'. The major exception is that the
Ex site adds "while avoiding religion and dogma". This made me wonder what
the logical connection is between transhumanism and the exclusion of
religion. I agree with S.A. (and Anders') position that there is no
necessary connection between (what I take to be) the core of transhumanism,
namely, that we ought to employ technology to perfect ourselves, and the
rejection of religion. Of course it may be remarked that they are free to
define the term however they want. This is correct, I just don't see the
point. I could define 'transhumanism' in terms of excluding sushi eaters but
what would be the point?
(I am actually writing a paper now that takes a stronger position, that
Christianity entails transhumanism. The idea, in a nutshell, is that the
only viable theodicy is one that entails transhumanism).
In the coming battle, between those that think we ought to perfect our
natures through technology and those that don't, I don't think we can afford
to loose any potential allies. Transhumanists ought to be able to work
together on a common goal and simply bracket questions of religious beliefs;
in the same way that religious and atheistic scientists can often work
together. As I see it, the transhumanism question cuts across all existing
"frameworks", e.g., the philosophical, the scientific, the artistic and the
religious frameworks. Is there something more sophisticated than mere
tribalism that makes us want to exclude or prioritize one? Mark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:16 MST