From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 03:22:24 MST
Simon McClenahan wrote:
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>
>>But is it a con when the mark WANTS to be conned, any more than beating
>>a masochist can be considered abuse?
>>
It depends on whether the contextual rules of such interactins
are respected or not. Being a masochist doesn't mean that one
is happy to be beat on in all imaginable contexts. SM stuff is
actually quite structured and in some ways less open to chance
misunderstandings than more "straight" sexual/emotional
interactions.
Taking advantage of someone in any way against their wishes is
abusive regardless of whether they may like superficially
similar things in specific contexts.
>
>>The golden rule is to treat others as they want to be treated, not as
>>you think they should be treated... from that perspective, formulating
>>and promulgating an extropic transhumanist theology for the use of the
>>religiously inclined is an ethical endeavor.
>>
Actually, that is not the golden rule (for whatever that is
worth). The golden rule is to treat them as you would like to
be treated. Which always seemed a bit twisted to me.
>
> Being a mark or a victim may be in a person's nature, but that does not mean
> they want to be victimized. A potential Church of Extropia recruit does not
> want a God in nanotech form because most likely by their concept of what a
> God should be, nanotech does not fit into that. I think that re-writing the
> stories in the Bible substituting God concepts with nanotech concepts would
> probably reveal more about an atheist model of life rather than theist.
>
Why? The only way you could get the various miracles and
stories to remotely be actual is with an SI level intelligence
and something as capable (if not more so) than nanotech. Some
stories require going further and bending the rules of a sim.
But there is nothing in theism per se that requires that god[s]
be utterly beyond any and all technology and only employ forever
unfathomable "pure magic". It is an immature or decadent view
of "Higher Powers" to require nothing but inexplicable magic.
> I know that Extropianism does not exclude theists, but I have been assuming
> that those who do "get it", the principles of Extropianism, have adopted an
> atheist lifestyle anyway... do any of the Big Guns here care, or dare, to
> comment on their personal beliefs with regard to atheism?
>
If God does not exist then something indistinquishable for
practical purposes soon will exist if such is at all possible.
God and more generally spirituality is used for a lot of very
different things. I know several quite atheistic people who are
profoundly spiritual. I have been all over the map on such
things myself. There is much I deeply distrust in religion and
many types of spirituality. There is much that has and does
call me there also. My notion of God is ultra-high tech but
certainly no less full of mystery and wonder for all of that.
You might say also that "God" is a projection of what we think
the ultimate "perfection" would be. Many that make their own
projections don't call it "God" because of all the baggage that
very much gets in the way.
If there already is an SI, that might even have created this
apparent space-time bubble, then it pleases Ve to ignore any
requests for communication or proof that I have ever made. It
would seem there either is no such or that the point of this
exercise is for us to "grow up" to the point of creating our own.
- samantha
> cheers,
> Simon
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST