From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 16:59:36 MDT
Al Billings wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> > i dont' think that having a set or range of views that put you within or
> > without a group really qualifies said group as a cult.
>
> Perhaps not but having people say that you have to endorse a particular
> leader's views on a subject to be a member of a particular group does seem
> rather cult-like.
Which is why I did not say just Max More. There are plenty of other writers,
like TO Morrow, FM-2030, Natasha Vita-More, myself, Greg Burch, Anders Sandberg,
Sasha Chislenko (lets not leave him out), and many others who have contributed
significantly to transhumanism. From everyone's work, it may be a rather broad
brush that defines the set 'transhumans', but it is also rather easy to define
what is NOT a transhuman. Someone who is negative about the movement and notable
individuals within it, critical of ideas many transhumans consider
commonsensical, someone who accuses the movement or one of its subsets of being
a cult on a constant basis. Does this sound familiar?
> [.snip.]
>
> > i think not. transhumanism is a particular range of beliefs, which i
> think
> > are well represented by Mike's list of authors. And if a person disagrees
> > with all of them, it would be safe to say they should call themselves
> > something else, to avoid confusion.
>
> It would be safe to say, perhaps, but neither you nor anyone else is in the
> position to define someone else out of Transhumanism. You don't have that
> authority.
No more and no less than anyone else. However, with enough individuals saying
the same thing, one does tend to build consensus on occasion....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:13 MST