From: Al Billings (memoria@memoria.com)
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 01:21:35 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Okay :-) I better very quickly add that I am joking. Actually,
> you're quite right, and that's why Norman is being discussed here
> in the way that he is. Evidently, it does look like a cult. But
> it does not logically qualify as a cult. Cults have a number of
> distinguishing characteristics that are entirely absent here:
I would disagree with your list of defining characteristics but that's
fine.
> 1. the usual verbal activity is agreement, not disputation
But everyone agrees on certain things here to a pretty fair degree. The
Singularity? Uploading in some form? AI? Nanotechnology?
> 2. there are one or more central figures whose teachings
> or pronouncements are held in awe
Max More and his Extropian Principles. All bow before Max's wisdom...
> 3. deviance of belief is not recognized, or if it is,
> it is severely criticized as "not getting with the
> program"
I've seen that every time someone expresses something largely
non-libertarian, heavily in disagreement with the Max's principles or
even supportive of such simple things as spirituality...
> 4. money or lifestyle is almost always a key issue
I think that this could be heavily debated for a cult requirement. I
see plenty of discussion of this here in any case.
> 5. you're either in or you're out
That's about the only thing missing here but perhaps the Extropian
Institute qualifies?
You seriously don't think this looks like some sort of cult for science
fiction fans and computer geeks to the mainstream (the people that you
want to influence)?
Al
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:58 MST