From: Skye Howard (skyezacharia@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 23 1999 - 14:08:59 MDT
*grins* I would agree that some anger is necessary- I,
for one, do not prefer to waste my time by double
checking things a hundred times before submitting it-
I like the group to be as much like a big mind as
possible- and if we yell at ourselves, we can correct
our mistakes. We can also add more information to our
stores of knowledge by argument- some of the best
arguments in here are ones where someone gets so angry
they make a stinging reply- and lists half a dozen
things to support themselves! What I don't like as
much are arguments about things that are ephemerial-
for example, philosophical type arguments about things
that can't be ultimately rpoven- like whether or not
there might be some sort of god (I for one consider
myself "operationally atheistic, but rationally
agnostic" if that makes any sense- I'm pretty sure
there isn't a god, but I can't prove that there isn't
some kind of being, since supposing infinite power and
intelligence makes it somewhat harder to
disprove...but I don't waste my time with the concept-
it would be like constantly thinking about an
invisible imp someone claims keeps landing on your
shoulder:)) What I mean is that there are quality
questions to be thought about when arguing. Are you
arguing emotionally or with facts and figures? Are
there other ways your facts and figures might be
misinterpreted or simply different ways they can be
interpreted that might lead to strange, redundant, and
confusing arguments.... much of regular argument seems
to degenerate into some sort of shouting match, all
about things that might or might not happen if
something we've never seen before suddenly occured.
While it is good to make predictions, the best thing
about future situations is that they can be
multiplicitously interpreted without contradiction-
it's called leaving your possibilities open. Oh well,
I'm sure my point has allready been made- I haven't
had time to really read through the list lately
because of other projects and things.
--- Renee Chantrill-Paul <chantrill-paul@excite.com>
wrote:
>
> I recently signed into the extropian mailing list a
> few weeks ago and have
> been sifting through your abundant correspondances.
> I found it amusing how
> some people commented on the "anger" or
> "aggressiveness" of this list.
>
> I say, "AAAHHHH they're alive!!!"
>
> Be angry, be passionate, be compassionate also over
> another viewpoint. After
> all people that touch your life will either reaffirm
> your convictions or
> change them. The path to intellectual "truth" (which
> I have purposely
> encased in quotations, is to remark that what
> "truth" is is exclusively the
> given individual's perception of what it is) means
> you may build on a
> hypothesis then par hassard, be forced to tear that
> investment down in order
> to construct a more solid one. Ah there is such
> expenses involved....but the
> next will be even better, stronger in your life's
> goal.
>
> Finding intellectual "truth" may also be attributed
> to making an honest try
> at being objective in cultivating ones interests.
>
> How to be objective? One example is living in
> foreign countries (I spent 3
> years in Paris) and have regular daily contact with
> the native people. One
> realizes by discovery that while learning about this
> foriegn country, you
> are learning even more about your own (through
> cultural comparison and the
> natives' perception of your home country).
>
> With that being said, I would like to comment on
> this education issue that
> seems to be maintaining a lively dialogue. To
> address the point of religion
> in schools- I read the Kansas resolution and to say
> the least, was chilled
> to the bone--I feel as many others, that it has no
> place there as per
> intent.
>
> Church is free and abundant in the USA with 40% of
> the nation paying their
> respects at least once a week. And as far as their
> children getting
> religious education-- don't they have Sunday SCHOOL
> programs at church?
>
> If religious folks want religion in school, to be
> fair all religions should
> be taught with equal attention to the subject,
> theology, to give all its
> honest due and as a subject to be studied not
> narrow-mindedly indoctrinated.
> (perhaps the Christian Coalition would not have this
> *quite* in mind.
>
> I wouldn't actually mind it being taught in a manner
> taken for the ancient
> religions and religious dieties; (i.e. the
> Egyptian/Greek/Roman Gods) as
> myth with historical importance.
>
> I would also like to comment on the "reducing sex
> drive" issue. Before that
> I should mention that I am a feminist. Wait don't
> sigh...I'm not one of
> those WASPy girls that are as much in touch with
> reality as our fairy tale
> maiden with the long red hair in a certain tower.
> I'm a
> Camille-Paglia-let's- be- real-
>
and-face-it-that-with-freedom-comes-responsibility-wake-up-upper-middle-clas
> s-girls-I-grew-up-with- that-
>
if-you-want-to-think-that-boys-will-behave-nice-like-girls-then-perhaps-you-
>
need-a-chaperone-on-your-outings-my-lassies-because-testostrone-is-dangerous
> -!!!!-!!! kind of feminist.
>
> It may be dangerous, volitale, but it's also the
> woman's "ace in the hole".
> Men do "strange things" that go not only against
> their intellectual but
> biological nature as well. They assist in raising
> children, work extremely
> hard on their career (often something they may not
> enjoy) and live peaceably
> in a society.
>
> If they don't their fundamental urges are denied.
> ANyone ever seen the movie
> "Trading Places", where Eddie Murphy says, "I lost
> my job, my wife won't
> make love to me no more"? hmmmmm.
>
> The male sex drive indirectly does alot of good for
> women (besides the
> obvious direct part). If we diminished it we would
> loose the female power to
> bend men to the will of women. (which fundamentally
> is bearing and nuturing
> children to adulthood). Occasional anti-societal
> manifestations, I believe,
> are a small price to pay for the overall benefits. I
> say, hail
> testosterone!! Keep it going until the last man has
> transfered his mind into
> his nano-immortality machine....
>
> Once we have reached voluntary immortality. Sex will
> no longer be an issue
> anyway, right? Could loosing the sexual interest
> mean to loose the interest
> to think and be our clever pre-transhuman selves? I
> think not. We could
> loose the interest in sex simply through lack of
> hormones, but thinking is
> so fundamentally tied to the conscious mind that it
> may be happy to plod
> along ad infinitum learning its fancies. Those who
> loose interest could
> always "unplug" themselves.
>
> Before everyone nods off, I want to mention some of
> my favorite authors and
> would like to hear of any recommendations. Matt
> Ridley, Richard Dawkins (I
> noticed others share my interest there). ALso Carl
> Djerassi for his
> science-in-fiction novels--lots of fun. For real
> feminism (not
> -nazism)Camille Paglia. Political freshness??,
> Aldous Huxley (no not just
> "Brave New World").
>
> In further regard to Huxley's novels: One can learn
> alot more from ficitious
> dinner parties in the 1920s then through political
> debates on television
> today. It was a time of hope, worry, and major
> political turmoil. The mixing
> of many intellectual minds and their repsective
> political parties. A period
> on the brink of National Socialism that fell on the
> Industrialized world. As
> we move into the new century/millineum this grey
> cloud still looms over
> us.......
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Renee Chantrill
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at
> http://voicemail.excite.com
> Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:35 MST