From: Emlyn (emlyn@one.net.au)
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 22:09:32 MDT
I was being 'orrible and flippant. But I had a point...
Firstly, all this "mysticism" stuff. Gag me with a spoon! Special spiritual
insight, grokking the nature of reality; where does that really get you? You
feel like it does something positive, but I think it's really just feelgood
crud; I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show any measurable benefit of such
epiphany. It sounds suspiciously like the idea of psychedelic drugs
"expanding your consciousness". The idea appeals (at least under the
influence of them, as far as I recall), but it's pretty much meaningless in
any tangible context. In the end, this stuff is the enemy of rational
thought, basically by definition.
Secondly, and more importantly; this idea of building God for ourselves is
downright dangerous. The god meme has appeal; it's nice to believe that
there's a point to the universe, after all (delusional as that may be). By
extension, when you decide there isn't a God (or a Sysop), then it can seem
like a good idea to make one, or become one.
What does that mean, though? If you are going to build a do-it-yourself
guardian (in the sense of Plato - it was Plato, wasn't it?) then I think
that's bad news; the best outcome we can hope for is failure. It's also
bloody arrogant.
If you are going to become one, you either envisage being such a guardian,
or maybe raising everyone up to equal status. In the guardian case, the same
arguments apply as above. In the egalitarian case, where is godhood? It's
more powerful beings, sure, but a society of such. So the concept of God is
not useful in that context.
Basically, the concept of God is all about authority, control, dominance.
The ideas of benign rule, divine right, perfection. If you have any kind of
individualist streak, these are anathema.
Gods will not help us where we are going. But they could seriously stuff
things up.
Emlyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael LaTorra" <mike99@lascruces.com>
To: "extropian list" <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: Ye Are Gods (was: Re: just me)
> Emlyn,
> I think you missed Mitch's point. He is not praying to God for help to
cure
> us; he is asking for help in building God to be us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael LaTorra
> mike99@lascruces.com
> mlatorra@excite.com
>
> 3229 Risner Street
> Las Cruces, NM 88011-4823
> USA
>
> 505.522.5121
>
> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 04:49:42 +1000
> From: "Emlyn" <emlyn@one.net.au>
> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_just_me=0E?=
>
> Gods (or Godesses) aren't going to help us where we are going. Get over
it.
>
> Emlyn
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Spudboy100@aol.com>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 3:30 AM
> Subject: Re: just me_
>
>
> > Not to get holy-roller on anyone here, but I agree with Samatha's
> conjecture
> > that if there is no God, then there is certainly room for one in a
> Universe
> > that includes suffering. What Samantha gets when she "recieves a lift"
> from
> > reading certain religious tracts is one of the religious experiences
> > described by 19th century psychologist Willam James. Having a God
module
> is
> > good if it connects one up with a sense of a better ethical system. If
it
> > leads only to the Inquisition torture chamber, then it's a bad bet. So
I
> am
> > talking 'outcomes' here.
> >
> > Ultimately, it may turn out that some advanced primate species (humans)
> once
> > had a God module as part of their brain, and it helped them develop
> computers
> > that colonized the cosmos, which in the end leads to an ultimate Mind
> (God)
> > which fixed things that needed fixing (since it has ultimate computing
> power)
> > and help resurrect people such as Samantha! This is more inspired from a
> > reading of Julian Barbour (The End of Time) as well as Tipler and
> Barrow's
> > Final Anthropic Principle. Talk amongst yourselves, i'm getting
> ver-klempt!
> > (sob!)
> > -Mitch
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:02 MST