From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 20:40:28 MST
At 04:00 PM 3/6/02 -0600, you wrote:
>From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > But is it a con when the mark WANTS to be conned, any more than beating
> > a masochist can be considered abuse?
>
>I don't see the parallel you are trying to make here. Theists that are open
>to conversion can be convinced or persuaded to both another theism or
>atheism. Just because someone is open to change does not mean they are
>actively looking to change. In your analogy, if you desire to be conned,
>then you cease to become a mark. Your masochist analogy doesn't hold either,
>since you could consider giving the masochist a warm fuzzy hug can also be
>considered abuse.
>
>
> > The golden rule is to treat others as they want to be treated, not as
> > you think they should be treated... from that perspective, formulating
> > and promulgating an extropic transhumanist theology for the use of the
> > religiously inclined is an ethical endeavor.
>
>Being a mark or a victim may be in a person's nature, but that does not mean
>they want to be victimized. A potential Church of Extropia recruit does not
>want a God in nanotech form because most likely by their concept of what a
>God should be, nanotech does not fit into that. I think that re-writing the
>stories in the Bible substituting God concepts with nanotech concepts would
>probably reveal more about an atheist model of life rather than theist.
I once considered the possibility of promoting a sort of "Transhuman
spiritual movement" - NOT a religion - however, the distinction as I might
have done it might have been too subtle for some people. However, I
decided that the sort of people who might be open to that sort of thing
would not be the sort of people I would want as Transhumans. Also it is
doubtful that such people would truly comprehend Transhumanism.
That said, however, it might have attracted *some* good people - and it
might have been an interesting and useful public relations move. But I
think it would be better to promote Transhumanism as more of a "self-help
spiritual movement" than simply a "spiritual movement - i.e., attract
people by using the promise of Transhumanism to provide everything that
humans have ever wanted, i.e., the end of death. As one of William
Burroughs' characters said, "Your life is a ruin. We have the only road to
personal immortality." I think that would be a very attractive approach to
a lot of people - IF you could convince them it is really true.
BTW, if someone can correct me on this, okay, but my understanding is that
the term Transhuman comes from the Greek "transhumanar" which meant
"transhumanization". This was a Gnostic concept that meant, roughly, man
should not worship God but instead strive to *become* God. When this
attitude met up with Greek rationalism, the result was eventually
translated into occultism on the one hand and the scientific method on the
other (with considerable influences both ways a la alchemy). The next
reference I found for the term was an essay by Sir Julian
Huxley. Following that comes Esfandiary in the 70's or 80"s - and then of
course "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition" - :-}
>I know that Extropianism does not exclude theists, but I have been assuming
>that those who do "get it", the principles of Extropianism, have adopted an
>atheist lifestyle anyway... do any of the Big Guns here care, or dare, to
>comment on their personal beliefs with regard to atheism?
>
>cheers,
> Simon
I am a "rabid" atheist. And I don't believe anyone who believes in a "god"
(of the supernatural kind) qualifies as a Transhumanist. If Extropianism
does not exclude theists, it should.
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 2/19/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST