From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Fri Mar 12 02:50:35 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA08565; Fri, 12 Mar 93 02:50:31 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA01821; Fri, 12 Mar 93 02:50:25 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Fri, 12 Mar 93 05:41:52 -0500 Message-Id: <9303121041.AA22365@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 05:41:28 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <9303121041.AA22359@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0125 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on March 12, 373 P.N.O. [10:41:51 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Fri, 12 Mar 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0125 Today's Topics: ECON/AI: What if AIs can't catch up? [1 msgs] Extropianism as a Cargo Cult [3 msgs] Frequently Asked Questions about Neopaganism [1 msgs] Great Pagan Trial--Challenge Accepted [1 msgs] HUMOR: Nobody expects the Extropian Inquisition! [1 msgs] INFO: Companies who want to sniff your pee [1 msgs] META: Crypto-Lists [1 msgs] MISC: Weapons in public places [1 msgs] Meta: Cargo Cult censure? [2 msgs] PHIL META a challenge to be rational? [2 msgs] PHIL/META: A Challenge to be Rational [2 msgs] unsubscribe [1 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 56732 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:13:14 EST From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski) Subject: HUMOR: Nobody expects the Extropian Inquisition! This concern over the content of discussions in extropians is remarkably similar to the debate over libertarian purity among members of the Libertarian Party in libernet-d. The Libertarians supporting a pure LP are defending the LP "pledge", which reads: "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." After which you are supposed to sign. Let me then propose the extropian pledge! "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate entropy as a means of achieving personal, political or social goals -- and that includes yogic flying and reincarnation!" --------------------------------------- sign here with your encrypted signature Have members of extropians be professed extropians only. I also propose the formation of the Extropian Inquisition. --Nobody expects the Extropian Inquisition! Donations for the cause will go towards research into neural pain amplifiers and other instruments of high-tech torture to be used on heretics of the faith (subject to arbitration, of course). Those taunting posters will learn the errors of their ways soon enough! I offer myself for the post of grand Exquisitor and permanent arbitrator in all cases of heresy. =============================================================================== | |\ /| | "But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to | | \\ // | think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, | | \\// | but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal..." | | Mark \/enture | - Aristotle, _The Nicomachean Ethics_ | =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 18:18:54 PST From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: Extropianism as a Cargo Cult Tim May proposes: > > I fully agree that socialists are generally more dangerous than flying > yogis are. But the "socialists" on this list have not created the problems > we see in formerly socialist/Marxist countries. So hearing their views, > especially as they relate to the effects of nanotech and other > technologies, seems pretty reasonable (I'm thinking of some posts by Dave > Cake and Jay O'Connell, for example). I am in no way supporting the rude treatement of our list socialists, especially as they do not engange in hit-n-run tactics, unlike our resident flying-yogi enthusiast. In general they have shown respect for our request to not discuss socialism on a frequent basis, and seem, in general to be a bunch of nice guys^H^H^H^H entities. > > On the other hand, should Extropianism come to be seen as a safe haven for > "techno-pagans" and other Seekers, we could be in deep trouble--as a list. > Right now I'm more concerned about Newage seeping into the list than I am > about socialists taking it over. I have no problem with tecno-pagans being on the list. They're pretty harmless, in general, with being harmless one of their central tenets. I especially don't want to be rude to these folks. However if they insist on discussing new-age issues against the explicit wishes of the list managment/membership, I will have no problem with their censure. Mark "An they be not assholes, be rude to no one shall be the whole of the list law" DeSilets ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 13:33:23 PDT From: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Baugh) Subject: META: Crypto-Lists U > Well, that's what I do, since my employer is not on-line. How many of U > us U > are reading this on job-related machines, and how many have complete U > control of their machines? I'm reading on the computer in my home (which I also use for that portion of work I do on my own, rather than for someone else). And of course I'm getting these messages through a FidoNet <=> Usenet gateway. I remember taking part in a discussion some years ago, in a rolegaming context, as to whether networks would evolve towards the archetypal cyberpunk Net or not. My argument was that no, they wouldn't; we'd just get ever more sophisticated front ends. I think my participation here bears me out. -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!40.23!Bruce.Baugh Internet: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 11:08:53 -0500 (EST) From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!esr@uunet.UU.NET (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: ECON/AI: What if AIs can't catch up? > What's more, I imagine uploaded people will *share* some components (agents, > in Minsky's language). I'll bet I could find buyers for copies of some of > my language agents, assuming they can be decoupled; and if buyers, why not > renters? Brings up an interesting question. What kinds of "agent" would be most sought after? I have a guess that they wouldn't be the intellectual skills, which are sufficiently trainable even with our extremely crude methods that you could grow your own cheaply and quickly. My guess is that the really hot items would be *talents* especially ones involving varieties of intuition or perception that aren't communicable. Your "language agents" probabably fall in that category. I suspect my hottest seller would probably be my odd bump of musical talent. I have a studio-engineer ear, a phonographic memory and the ability to improvise and/or generate counterpoint fluently on any instrument I can play a fast scale on (one consequence of this is that I can sing close harmony to a song I've never heard before). I seem to have been born with this; in fact, I didn't realize it was an unusual knack until my teens. The weird part is that I think I'm actually a better hacker than I am a musician --- but there are probably lots of ways to acquire "better hacker", whereas I've never heard of anyone *learning* the ability I just described. -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 22:36:30 -0500 (EST) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: PHIL/META: A Challenge to be Rational I an about to demonstrate my faith in the power of reasoned argument. Tim May recently called for us to support rational principles and the scientific method. In the same posting, he referred sneeringly to "neopagan mystics" and made it quite clear that, at least in the abstract, he'd like to see all such life-forms canned off the list as time-wasting threats to our memetic health. Despite Mr. May's prejudices in this area, I believe that he is fundamentally a rational, well-intentioned person. Therefore, I'm going to put him on the spot. The tail of this posting will consist of a FAQ on neopaganism which I post periodically. Mr. May is invited to read it, carefully, and to ask me any questions he feels he needs to clarify points which might remain obscure. Here's the important point. I enjoy the Extropians list a great deal; it would be a wrench for me to leave it. But I am now, publicly, putting my continued presence on the list in Tim May's hands. Mr. May, if you believe as you've so stridently claimed that all neopagans are irredeemable flakes and "cargo cultists", then (after reading the FAQ) say the word and I'll resign. Otherwise, I will expect you to publicly concede that neopaganism (as described below and in my responses to your questions, if any) is at least compatible with a rational mind-set. The reason for my admittedly quixotic offer is to raise the stakes. I want to deny Mr. May the convenience of bashing a faceless abstraction. I'm counting on his native sense of fairness and reluctance to personally injure a list member to push him into looking past his unfortunate prejudices. Tim, the next move is up to you. ---------------------------------- CUT HERE ---------------------------------- From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Newsgroups: talk.religion,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan,news.answers Subject: Frequently Asked Questions about Neopaganism Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu Followup-To: poster Archive-name: neopaganism-faq Last-update: Samhain 1992 Version: 4.0 I. Introduction The neopagan phenomenon is a loose collection of religious movements, experiments, and jokes combining some very new thinking with some very old sources. This article, prepared at the request of a number of curious net.posters, offers a brief description of neopagan thought and practice. A couple of good sources for further study are listed at the end. II. What is a neopagan? I used the term `religious' above, but as you'll see it's actually more than somewhat misleading, and I (like many other neopagans) use it only because no other word is available for the more general kind of thing of which the neopagan movement and what we generally think of as `religion' are special cases. Neopaganism is `religious' in the etymological sense of `re ligare', to rebind (to roots, to strengths, to the basics of things), and it deals with mythology and the realm of the `spiritual'. But, as we in the Judeo/Christian West have come to understand `religion' (an organized body of belief that connects the `supernatural' with an authoritarian moral code via `faith') neopaganism is effectively and radically anti-religious. I emphasize this because it is important in understanding what follows. Common characteristics of almost all the groups that describe themselves as `neopagan' (the term is often capitalized or hyphenated) include: 1. Anti-dogmatism Neopagan religions are religions of practice, pragmatism and immediate experience. The emphasis is always on what they can help the individuals in them to *do* and *experience*; theology and metaphysics take a back seat, and very little `faith' or `belief' is required or expected. In fact many neopagans (including yours truly) are actively hostile to `faith' and all the related ideas of religious authority, `divine revelation' and the like. 2. Compatibility with a scientific world-view This tends to follow from the above. Because neopaganism is centered in experiences rather than beliefs, it doesn't need or want to do vast overarching cosmologies or push fixed Final Answers to the Big Questions -- understanding and helping human beings relate to each other and the world as we experience it is quite enough for us. Thus, we are generally friendly to science and the scientific world-view. Many of us are scientists and technologists ourselve (in fact, by some counts, a plurality of us are computer programmers!). 3. Reverence for nature, sensuality, and pleasure Most neopaganisms make heavy use of nature symbolism and encourage people to be more aware of their ties to all the non-human life on this planet. Explicit worship of `Gaia', the earth ecosphere considered as a single interdependent unit, is common. Veneration of nature dieties is central to many traditions. Ecological activism is often considered a religious duty, though there is much controversy over what form it should take. By preference, most neopagans hold their ceremonies outdoors under sun or moon. Seasonal changes and astronomical rhythms (especially the solstices, equinoxes and full and new moons) define the ritual calendar. Ritual and festive nudity are common; to be naked before nature is often considered a holy and integrating act in itself. Sex is considered sacramental and sexual energy and symbolisms permeate neopagan practice (we like to contrast this with Christianity, in which the central sacrament commemorates a murder and climaxes in ritual cannibalism). 4. Polytheism, pantheism, agnosticism Most neopaganisms are explicitly polytheistic -- that is, they recognize pantheons of multiple dieties. But the reality behind this is more complex than it might appear. First, many neopagans are philosophical agnostics or even atheists; there is a tendency to regard `the gods' as Jungian archetypes or otherwise in some sense created by and dependent on human belief, and thus naturally plural and observer-dependent. Secondly, as in many historical polytheisms, there is an implicit though seldom-discussed idea that all the gods and goddesses we deal with are `masks', refractions of some underlying unity that we cannot or should not attempt to approach directly. And thirdly, there is a strong undercurrent of pantheism, the belief that the entire universe is in some important sense a responsive, resonating and sacred whole (or, which is different and subtler, that it is useful for human beings to view it that way). Many neopagans (including yours truly) hold all three of these beliefs simultaneously. 5. Decentralized, non-authoritarian organization; no priestly elite Neopagans have seen what happens when a priesthood elite gets temporal power; we want none of that. We do not take collections, build temples, or fund a full-time clergy. In fact the clergy-laity distinction is pretty soft; in many traditions, all members are considered `in training' for it, and in all traditions every participant in a ritual is an active one; there are and can be no pew-sitting passive observers. Most neopagan traditions are (dis)organized as horizontal networks of small affinity groups (usually called `circles', `groves', or `covens' depending on the flavor of neopagan involved). Priests and priestesses have no real authority outside their own circles (and sometimes not much inside them!), though some do have national reputations. Many of us keep a low profile partly due to a real fear of persecution. Too many of our spiritual ancestors were burned, hung, flayed and shot by religions that are still powerful for a lot of us to feel safe in the open. Down in the Bible Belt the burnings and beatings are still going on, and the media loves to hang that `Satanist' label on anything it doesn't understand for a good juicy story. Also, we never prosyletize. This posting is about as active a neopagan solicitation as anyone will ever see; we tend to believe that `converts' are dangerous robots and that people looking to be `converted' aren't the kind we want. We have found that it works quite well enough to let people find us when they're ready for what we have to teach. 6. Reverence for the female principle One of the most striking differences between neopagan groups and the religious mainstream is the wide prevalence (and in some traditions dominance) of the worship of goddesses. Almost all neopagans revere some form of the Great Mother, often as a nature goddess identified with the ecosphere, and there are probably more female neopagan clergy than there are male. Most neopagan traditions are equalist (these tend to pair the Great Mother with a male fertility-god, usually some cognate of the Greek Pan). A vocal and influential minority are actively feminist, and (especially on the West Coast) there have been attempts to present various neopagan traditions as the natural `women's religion' for the feminist movement. The effects of this kind of politicization of neopaganism are a topic of intense debate within the movement and fuel some of its deepest factional divisions. 7. Respect for art and creativity Neopaganism tends to attract artists and musicians as much as it attracts technologists. Our myth and ritual can be very powerful at stimulating and releasing creativity, and one of the greatest strengths of the movement is the rich outgrowth of music, poetry, crafts and arts that has come from that. It is quite common for people joining the movement to discover real talents in those areas that they never suspected. Poets and musicians have the kind of special place at neopagan festivals that they did in pre-literate cultures; many of our best-known people are or have been bards and songsmiths, and the ability to compose and improvise good ritual poetry is considered the mark of a gifted priest(ess) and very highly respected. 8. Eclecticism "Steal from any source that doesn't run too fast" is a neopagan motto. A typical neopagan group will mix Greek, Celtic and Egyptian mythology with American Indian shamanism. Ritual technique includes recognizable borrowings from medieval ceremonial magic, Freemasonry and pre-Nicene Christianity, as well as a bunch of 20th-century inventions. Humanistic psychology and some of the more replicable New Age healing techniques have recently been influential. The resulting stew is lively and effective, though sometimes a bit hard to hold together. 9. A sense of humor Neopagans generally believe that it is more dangerous to take your religion too seriously than too lightly. Self-spoofery is frequent and (in some traditions) semi-institutionalized, and at least one major neopagan tradition (Discordianism, known to many on this net) is *founded* on elaborate spoofery and started out as a joke. One of the most attractive features of the neopagan approach is that we don't confuse solemnity with gloom. Our rituals are generally celebratory and joyous, and a humorous remark at the right time need not break the mood. We generally feel that any religion that can't stand to have fun poked at it is in as sad shape as the corresponding kind of person. III. What kinds of neopagan are there, and where did they come from? Depending on who you talk to and what definitions you use, there are between 40,000 and 200,000 neopagans in the U.S.; the true figure is probably closer to the latter than the former, and the movement is still growing rapidly following a major `population explosion' in the late 1970s. The numerically largest and most influential neopagan group is the `Kingdom of Wicca' -- the modern witch covens. Modern witchcraft has nothing to do with Hollywood's images of the cackling, cauldron-stirring crone (though Wiccans sometimes joke about that one) and is actively opposed to the psychopathic Satanism that many Christians erroneously think of as `witchcraft'. Your author is an initiate Wiccan priest and coven leader of long standing. Other important subgroups include those seeking to revive Norse, Egyptian, Amerind, and various kinds of tribal pantheons other than the Greek and Celtic ones that have been incorporated into Wicca. These generally started out as Wiccan offshoots or have been so heavily influenced by Wiccan ritual technique that their people can work comfortably in a Wiccan circle and vice- versa. There are also the various orders of ceremonial magicians, most claiming to be the successors to the turn-of-the-century Golden Dawn or one of the groups founded by Alesteir Crowley during his brillant and notorious occult career. These have their own very elaborate ritual tradition, and tend to be more intellectual, more rigid, and less nature-oriented. They are sometimes reluctant to describe themselves as neopagans. The Discordians (and, more recently, the Discordian-offshoot Church of the Sub-Genius) are few in number but quite influential. They are the neopagan movement's sacred clowns, puncturing pretense and adding an essential note to the pagan festivals. Many Wiccans, especially among priests and priestesses, are also Discordians and will look you straight in the eye and tell you that the entire neopagan movement is a Discordian hoax... Neopaganism used to be largely a white, upper-middle-class phenomenon, but that has been changing during the last ten years. So called `new-collar' workers have come in in droves during the eighties. We still see fewer non-whites, proportionately, than there are in the general population, but that is also changing (though more slowly). With the exception of a few nut-fringe `Aryan' groups detested by the whole rest of the movement, neopagans are actively anti-racist; prejudice is not the problem, it's more that the ideas have tended to be accepted by the more educated segments of society first, and until recently those more educated segments were mostly white. On the East Coast, a higher-than-general-population percentage of neopagans have Roman Catholic or Jewish backgrounds, but figures suggest this is not true nationwide. There is also a very significant overlap in population with science-fiction fandom and the Society for Creative Anachronism. Politically, neopagans are distributed about the same as the general population, except that whether liberal or conservative they tend to be more individualist and less conformist and moralistic than average. It is therefore not too surprising that the one significant difference in distribution is the presence of a good many more libertarians than one would see in a same-sized chunk of the general population (I particularly register this because I'm a libertarian myself, but non-libertarians have noted the same phenomenon). These complexities are obscured by the fact that the most politically active and visible neopagans are usually ex-hippie left-liberals from the 1960s. I think the most acute generalization made about pagans as a whole is Margot Adler's observation that they are mostly self-made people, supreme individualists not necessarily in the assertive or egoist sense but because they have felt the need to construct their own culture, their own definitions, their own religious paths, out of whatever came to hand rather than accepting the ones that the mainstream offers. IV. Where do I find out more? I have deliberately not said much about mythology, or specific religious practice or aims, or the role of magic and to what extent we practice and 'believe' in it. Any one of those is a topic for another posting; but you can get a lot of information from books. Here's a basic bibliography: Adler, Margot _Drawing_Down_the_Moon_ (Random House 1979, hc) This book is a lucid and penetrating account of who the modern neo-pagans are, what they do and why they do it, from a woman who spent almost two years doing observer-participant journalism in the neo-pagan community. Especially valuable because it combines an anthropologist's objectivity with a candid personal account of her own feelings about all she saw and did and how her ideas about the neo-pagans changed under the impact of the experiences she went through. Recommended strongly as a first book on the subject, and it's relatively easy to find. There is now a revised and expanded second edition available. Starhawk _The_Spiral_Dance_ An anthology of philosophy, poetry, training exercises, ritual outlines and instructive anecdotes from a successful working coven. First-rate as an introduction to the practical aspects of magick and running a functioning circle. Often findable at feminist bookstores. Shea, Robert and Wilson, Robert Anton _Illuminatus!_ (Dell, 1975, pb) This work of alleged fiction is an incredible berserko-surrealist rollercoaster that _will_ bend your mind into a pretzel with an acid-head blitzkrieg of plausible, instructive and enlightening lies and a few preposterous and obscure truths. Amidst this eccentric tale of world-girdling conspiracies, intelligent dolphins, the fall of Atlantis, who _really_ killed JFK, sex, drugs, rock and roll and the Cosmic Giggle Factor, you will find Serious Truths about Mind, Time, Space, the Nature of God(dess) and What It All Means -- and also learn why you should on no account take them Seriously. Pay particular attention to Appendix Lamedh ("The Tactics of Magick"), but it won't make sense until you've read the rest. This was first published in 3 volumes as _The_Eye_In_The_Pyramid_, _The_ Golden_Apple_ and _Leviathan_, but there's now a one-volume trade paperback carried by most chain bookstores under SF. Campbell, Joseph W., _The_Masks_of_God_ (Viking Books, 1971, pb) One of the definitive analytical surveys of world mythography -- and readable to boot! It's in 4 volumes: I. _Primitive_Mythology_ II. _Oriental_Mythology_ III. _Occidental_Mythology_ IV. _Creative_Mythology_ The theoretical framework of these books is a form of pragmatic neo-Jungianism which has enormously influenced the neopagans (we can accurately be described as the practice for which Campbell and Jung were theorizing). Note especially his predictions in vols. I & IV of a revival of shamanic, vision-quest-based religious forms. The recent Penguin pb edition of this book should be available in the Mythology and Folklore selection of any large bookstore. Bonewits, Isaac, _Real_Magic_ (Creative Arts Books, 1979, pb) A fascinating analytical study of the psychodynamics of ritual and magick. This was Bonewits's Ph.D. thesis for the world's only known doctorate in Magic and Thaumaturgy (UC Berkeley, 1971). Hardest of the five to find but well worth the effort -- an enormously instructive, trenchant and funny book. -- Eric S. Raymond = esr@snark.thyrsus.com ---------------------------------- CUT HERE ---------------------------------- -- >>eric>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 05:15:30 EST From: elrod@pro-cynosure.cts.com (Sean Carton) Subject: unsubscribe please unsubscribe me from all extropians materials. My sysadmin thinks that the volume is just too high. Bummer. Oh, well, I guess that I'll just have to buy the Journal! Sean Carton Internet: elrod@pro-cynosure.cts.com ProLine: elrod@pro-cynosure UUCP: crash!pro-cynosure!elrod -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- . "We intend to destroy all dogmatic verbal systems" . . ---William S. Burroughs . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 23:51:52 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Cargo Cult censure? I am interested in discussing how list members feel about increased censure of repeated discussion's of non Extropian topics like reincarnation and flying yogis? I am going to ask the same question to the ExI board. This is Not a call for a vote but I would like to see some discussion of this from major posters like Perry, Tim(s), and Robin and luckers too. I promise to listen (but not to agree) you your views. /harry -- Harry Shapiro habs@panix.com List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:14:53 PST From: Eli Brandt Subject: Extropianism as a Cargo Cult > So hearing their views, especially as they relate to the effects of > nanotech and other technologies, seems pretty reasonable (I'm > thinking of some posts by Dave Cake and Jay O'Connell, for example). Actually, I didn't think there was much flaming of Jay's posts -- I certainly thought they were reading. Dave Cake did get some flamage, though, as I recall. The difference was probably that he wasn't talking about the indefinite future, so some peoples' "creeping socialist dogma" buttons got pushed. > On the other hand, should Extropianism come to be seen as a safe haven for > "techno-pagans" and other Seekers, we could be in deep trouble--as a list. > Right now I'm more concerned about Newage seeping into the list than I am > about socialists taking it over. A specific point: I'm not clear on the boundaries of "techno-paganism", but I know several people who call themselves "neo-pagans" whom I would not describe as "New Age". They are not crystal weirdos; they are not supernaturalists; they're not into faith or blind belief. In fact, this flavor of paganism seems more a eupraxophy than a religion -- you know, that word that Max uses to describe "extropianism". I find it more rational than, say, the belief that eventually we'll be able to resurrect everybody by running advanced nanoAImumble on their two-thousand-year-old socks. Now, there certainly are some self- described "pagans" who think that a lot of peculiar things exist outside of their brains, but I haven't seen a demonstration of that on this list. Supernaturalist weirdness is no more attractive when displayed in an Xist or a Rif or a Drexlerite. (In case you're wondering, I'm not neopagan myself -- I don't really see the point. I have been known to dance around in thunderstorms for fun, but I don't need a label to do that.) > -Tim, hoping the list can be saved Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu who thinks that's a nice idea, but there may be fundamental problems in "target selection". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:29:09 PST From: Eli Brandt Subject: Meta: Cargo Cult censure? How about the usual technique of private mail suggesting that the post is off-topic? I personally don't mind a little fringe weirdness -- the bulk of the "noise" (i.e. messages I'm not interested in, and delete without more than a cursory reading) is not stuff that even a healthy majority of the list would likely agree with me on. That is, banning flying yogis would do approximately nothing for the S/N ratio with respect to my interests. Hey, I get on fringe-weirdness mailing lists for *fun*. One little fix might be to filter out postings from non-listers. These are most likely Idea Lord missives and the like. Ugh, can you imagine if MCELWAINE started blasting to the list? On the other hand, I believe I broadcast something to the list while off for the summer -- this sort of thing would be excluded as well. Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:40:59 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Extropianism as a Cargo Cult I wrote: >Mark Desilets proposed a reason and then Scott DeLancey expanded on it: >> >>> Frankly, I'm surprised at how rude some folks are to the "socialists" who Whoops! A mistake. Scott was replying to a post of Mark, and I mistakenly credited Mark with my own words ("Frankly, I'm surprised....."). Mark did offer his won explanation in his earlier post. Sorry. -Tim May (Normally I don't issue corrections for very minor errors, and never for typos. But in this case I wouldn't want Mark blamed for the stuff about why we're rude to socialists and not mystics.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:58:17 PST From: Eli Brandt Subject: MISC: Weapons in public places > What I fear is that a society with an underlying libertarian > *structure*, if the people of it don't have libertarian *attitudes*, > will rapidly come to resemble our present society, in terms of the > freedoms one is allowed to exercise in practice. In a statist society, all you need to do is rant a bit, and you can get yourself a War on Drugs, with little visible cost. If you're a citizen of some operation the size of a shopping mall, you're going to have a line item on your dues marked "Drug Clearance Financing". Sure, some people will be willing to pay to enforce moral purity. And their moralistic frenzy probably won't bring drive-by shootings down upon them, because people can just go elsewhere. But look at that again: people can just go elsewhere. Granted, there will be problems if the majority of jurisdictions feel like being fascistic. There's no easy fix for mass stupidity. > Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 22:07:12 PST From: more@chaph.usc.edu (Max More) Subject: INFO: Companies who want to sniff your pee Boing Boing printed a useful list of some companies who sniff their employees urine in search of illegal drug use, and a list of companies who have made statements AGAINST pee-sniffing. BB's source is The Great Usenet Piss List Monthly Posting. A monthly update is available by sending email to piss@dixie.com setting the Subject: line to SEND. Pee-sniffers: This list could be used to boycott the offenders... AT&T CostCo Dell Computer Dow Chemical Domino's Pizza EDS E-Systems General Dynamics Harrah's Lake Tahoe Home Depot Kodak Litwin Engineers Mobil Oil Motorola Ogden-Erc Portland General Texas Instruments TW Xerox Unisys Companies publically opposed to pee-sniffing: Apple Computers Atlanta Research Group Basys Automation Borland International Interactive Technology Mentor Graphics Microsoft Oracle Corp. Rapid Dvt. Systems Santa Cruz Operations Tandem Computers Good to see some of the big guys standing up to the narconuts. Max More more@usc.edu Executive Director Extropy Institute (ExI) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:34:04 -0500 (EST) From: Edward J OConnell Subject: PHIL META a challenge to be rational? THE ETERNAL QUESTION OF THE QUASI-EXTROPIAN SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO NOW? THE ANSWER: STAY IF YOU'RE HAVING A GOOD TIME. JAY SPEAKS OUT: I have been affiliated in the past with the intellectual far left, (not the lame-ass, vague leftness of the Democratic party) But I don't really feel the need to try to defend those ideas in this forum. There are things I like here. I listen. I posted my Post Scarcity stuff because I thought it might be of interest, and have some positive response--and I got some, more than I would have dreamed possible... Some people, of course, let me know in no uncertain terms, that they thought I was a weak minded, left-addled idiot, and that if I continued speaking, they would become more and more adamant in shredding anything I had to say. They also let me know that the only reason I wrote about post scarcity was because I was lazy. I thought they largely missed the point, refuted the essays sloppily, with assertions about human nature that were essentially unfalsifiable, and made no sense, and went back to ignoring me. This annoyed me, but, I realized, I wasn't going to convert anybody. Not even to the idea that I was a reasoning person with a pretty good brain--as were a subset of leftists, rightists, and every other ist on the face of the planet--no, even that wouldn't happen. They smelled the left in my post, and shat on it. As was their right, (no pun intended!) in this forum. Some will smell irrationalism in yours, and do the same to you. Who cares? I'll post, read, and enjoy, in the areas where we have convergence; I'll delete and grimace at the stuff that makes me sick to my stomach. When the net sum of the experience becomes negative, I'll leave. Spontaneous order, no? Who gives a shit what the hyperrationlists think? Hyperrationalism is just another goddamn religion; you and I know it; a cold, empty, stupid, sterile one, that denies maybe a zillion years of evolutionary human history. (It also ignores data, but lets not get off on a tangent.) But, still you're not going to convince anyone that your religion game is a rational and fun one. Some people spit on such anthropological nonsense. They don't like the *flavor* of it. It isn't' rational to hate it, because it's fun, and it isn't predicated on superstition or kowtowing to authority, but they won't admit that. Oh, that venerate the Earth thing isn't going to go over well here, either. The Earth is to be *used* not venerated. :) I remember when I had a libertarian explain to me once, why slaughtering the Indians was OK, because they hadn't properly 'mixed their labor with the land to produce a thing of value' They weren't really *using* the land, so they needed to be removed; kind of like malarial mosquitoes. So trying to sell Indian religion, in their rationalist's eyes the faith of losers, to those that have shook off the 'superior' western tradition, is going to go over like a lead balloon. I have sympathy and interest in neo-paganism/artificial religion, but I don't find it to be my cup of tea, either. (At the moment) I have respect for it, far more than I have for conventional religion, but, you can't expect for people wearing ideological blinders to be able to make out these not-so-subtle differences. It comes down to this: we can all see the inconsistencies in each other philosophies, plain as day, and it drives us nuts. Human's aren't really rational. But of course, to know that is to be neo-pagan! Don't go away because someone else says so. Be like Howard Roark! Be a pain in the ass! Stick around, because you want to be here, shout your pagan stuff to the four winds, and if it gets unpleasant, and it stops being fun, say good-bye, and find somewhere else to play, but don't push the responsibility of leaving off onto someone else. God, I'm beginning to *sound* like a libertarian! Don't pay any attention to the Meme Police. (Wasn't that an old Cheap trick song? The Meme police, they live inside of my head...) (Bottom line: I'm a SF writer. It's my job to read Extropians, regardless of whether I like it or not...) :) Jay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 3:54:39 WET From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: PHIL/META: A Challenge to be Rational After reading that long FAQ about neo-paganism, I still don't see the point. If neo-pagans are scientists, engineers, and computer types, and they are interested in "experiences" rather than beliefs in supernatural forces, why do they need a label, or for that matter, why don't they just take LSD and immerse themselves in virtual reality. If neo-paganism focuses on techniques for achieving extrordinary experiences I don't see any reason to call it mysticism. However, it does start to become scientific nonsense once notions like "conciousness of electrons","tree spirits", "magick", or "chi" is introduced. I don't see any problem with pagans claiming to have had incredible experiences by practicing certain techniques. It's the claims that there is something to life and the universe beyond our current knowledge of physics. For instance, the faq states that Illuminatus contains some "truths" about the mind and the universe but fails to state them or give evidence for them. Now in all fairness, I find the claims of the "Omega Point" to be equally distasteful and nothing more than an attempt at a scientific derivation of god. I am also not a "true-believer" in nanotech or cryonics and I think that there is a very difficult road ahead to achieve those. But I compute the probability of nanotech/cryonics being non-zero and since they are rational endeavors which can be engineered I find them more preferable than an intuitive experience based mysticism which isn't consistent or reproducable at will. I just don't see the point of discussing neopaganism on this list unless the pagans can present some evidence and how it is relevant to the extropian principles. I can demonstrate the relationship of nanotech to extropian goals and point to rational arguments based on evidence (such as advacements in chemistry, biotechnology, and STM/AFM physics). The same cannot be said of mysticism as far as I know except for a few sloppy fringe studies. The affinity for nature, earth, and animals seems particularly unrelated to extropian thought which could care less about trees, owls, or Gaia and focuses on reengineering life, nature, and the cosmos. (can a pagan cast a spell and turn me into an asteriod sized brain please? ) Since there is a pagan-faq, it appears there is a news group devoted to such beliefs. I think neo-pagan thought would be more appropriate there than in alt.atheism, sci.physics, or extropians@gnu. (*soap box* (for those who defend their beliefs by stating the catch-phrase "Science is a Religion! Rationalism is a Religion!" Fine. It's a religion, complete with a core set of beliefs and practices. Non-Scientific-Religions haven't done a damn thing for me, while science has put food in my mouth and computational power on my desk. It's rather obvious which one I'm going to support.) *end soap box*) -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 17:30:23 WST From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Subject: PHIL META a challenge to be rational? I can only agree with Edward J OConnells posting. There are two important things we can all do. One is not post things that are inflammatory. But the other is be a bit more thick skinned about other peoples posts, but without giving up our desire to criticise. Criticise politely and specifically, but avoid general flammage. Let us all aspire to be pancritical rationalists, with the ability to be critical of all our thoughts, even those we see as fundmental (like the way philosophers are critical of the pruinciple of induction). But in our pancriticism, let us not A) remember that we are in a forum where discussion of some topics is inappropriate or impolite and B) strive to be polite and, furthermore, interesting (being a bore is seldom polite), thus precluding yet another socialism flame, or flying yogi flame war, unless your posting is a)politely phrased b) sufficiently different to previous posts as to be likely to generate worthwhile and interesting discussion. P.S. yes, I (as one the agrieved parties) found that the vehemence of the anti-socialism flames was quite extreme, compared to some of the religious ones, for example. Personally I think that it is because socialism is so difficult to disprove (being based on basically unfalsifiable axioms, economics and politics not being sciences), reasoned argument is more difficult (you quickly get to a point where you disagree on basic axioms). And thus, any argument quickly gets away from rational argument, and usually quickly gets into crude inductive reasoning and generalisation - ie socialism is these things , they are bad, no it is these things, they are good. Of course, the same can be said of any political belief, and this probably explains why discussion of politics is avoided in polite society.:-) And doubly true of religion (which usually comes down to one particular axiom fairly quickly :-)) and so that is avoided even more. David Cake ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 01:43:12 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Great Pagan Trial--Challenge Accepted Eric Raymond has issued an unusual challenge. Though the stakes are quite high, I have accepted the challenge and will make my decision about the substance of the challenge in a timely way. Mr. Raymond has asked me to make a binary decision, yes or no, "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," on the substance of his "neopaganism" beliefs. (The precise terms are stated below in his challenge.) He has challenged me to be his judge despite his obvious knowledge, so stated by him, of my skepticism and disbelief in paganism, witchcraft, occultism, tree-worshipping, yogic flying, magick, Thelemic science, Gaia, astrology, reincarnation, and the like. Asking a critic to be judge, jury, and (de facto) executioner is kind of strange--must be some kind of pagan thing, I guess. But to turn down his well-stated challenge would be dishonorable and hypocritical. (For the record, note that I am not in a position to decide whether his beliefs--and/or the tenets of neopaganism--are in conflict with Extropian principles, with the beliefs of others on this list, are "wrong" in any provable way, etc. He doesn't ask me to. He asks only that I decide "yes" or "no." And I want this simple binary, yes or no decision to remain that way. I am not interested in spending considerable time reviewing the material provided by Mr. Raymond and others and then making a decision, only to have my decision subjected to interpretation, reinterpretation, redefinition of the terms, etc.) Included below is the section of his post dealing with the terms of the challenge. My comments are inserted in the usual way. >I an about to demonstrate my faith in the power of reasoned argument. > >Tim May recently called for us to support rational principles and the >scientific method. In the same posting, he referred sneeringly to >"neopagan mystics" and made it quite clear that, at least in the abstract, >he'd like to see all such life-forms canned off the list as time-wasting >threats to our memetic health. I said no such thing, but this doesn't matter. > >Despite Mr. May's prejudices in this area, I believe that he is fundamentally >a rational, well-intentioned person. Therefore, I'm going to put him on >the spot. Though I did not ask to judge you, I accept your challenge. > >The tail of this posting will consist of a FAQ on neopaganism which I post >periodically. Mr. May is invited to read it, carefully, and to ask me >any questions he feels he needs to clarify points which might remain obscure. I will read this FAQ and will also brush up on related points in alt.magick, alt.pagan, and any other sources people may steer me to. I regret that I don't have the time to track down original materials in books, so the material on the Net, or sent to me in e-mail (an invitation), will have to do. Again, my interpretations are the only ones specified in the challenge--my decision cannot be honorably ignored (no matter which way I decide) by claims that I "didn't get it" or, for example, that I did not read enough Aleister Crowley. It is especially important to me that the judgement be accepted on the terms of a simple "yes" or "no," and not finessed or reinterpreted in terms of *my* definitions of rationality vs. other's definitions, in terms of "proof" or "disproof," etc. Such issues would greatly complicate a case like this. And Mr. Raymond has not asked for this. > >Here's the important point. I enjoy the Extropians list a great deal; it >would be a wrench for me to leave it. But I am now, publicly, putting >my continued presence on the list in Tim May's hands. > >Mr. May, if you believe as you've so stridently claimed that all neopagans are >irredeemable flakes and "cargo cultists", then (after reading the FAQ) say the >word and I'll resign. Otherwise, I will expect you to publicly concede that >neopaganism (as described below and in my responses to your questions, if any) >is at least compatible with a rational mind-set. You have my word, Mr. Raymond! Thumbs Up Outcome: If I decide "that neopaganism (as described below and in my responses to your questions, if any) is at least compatible with a rational mind-set," quoting your exact words, then I will publicly say so (and will probably ask for the address of the nearest coven, so that I may join it). Thumbs Down Outcome: If, on the other hand, I decided that neopaganism is *not* compatible with a rational mind-set, then I will publicly say that as well. This negative opinion could come about in any number of ways, from doubts about the reality of pagan claims, to fundamental skepticism about the existence of _any_ spirits (let alone a "Gaia Spirit"), or even to the conclusion that the tenets are so nebulous and mutually contradictory that they cannot possibly be true. This is not to say I'll decide this way, though. > >The reason for my admittedly quixotic offer is to raise the stakes. I want to >deny Mr. May the convenience of bashing a faceless abstraction. I'm counting >on his native sense of fairness and reluctance to personally injure a list >member to push him into looking past his unfortunate prejudices. Yes, you've raised the stakes pretty high. I'll read the FAQ several more times and will weigh points carefully. But my standards for rationality and the scientific method are rather high, as you know. Consideration that you and other pagans and Wiccans may end up leaving the list as a result of my decision about the fundamental merits will have little effect on me. After all, if paganism is reasonable, I'll decide that way and thus you'll stay. If I decide paganism is not reasonable, you'll go and that will be all for the best. > >Tim, the next move is up to you. The challenge is joined. -The Right Honorable Timothy C. May, Judge in the Great Pagan Trial -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0125 ****************************************