From: Joy Williams (hummer@cruzio.com)
Date: Tue Jan 28 1997 - 12:28:40 MST
At 08:56 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Mike Cowar. wrote:
>>I find myself in about 85% agreement with extropianism,
>
>What parts?
I agree with the maximalization of our psyche's, let's see let me find the
site....
ok, as Max More wrote:
"1. Dynamic optimism serves to motivate continuous personal transformation,
and to sustain transformative efforts, conquering barriers and overwhelming
discouragement during times of difficulty or weariness.
2. Boundless expansion as a society provides the context required for us to
sustain truly long-term personal progress, to provide energy, space, and
the framework for the diversity implicit in individual self-transformation."
(as long as this is done in a balanced way without ruining the
environment, I have no problem with this).
"3. Intelligent technology in this context means directing science and
technology toward the transcendence of our hitherto inherently limited
abilities.
4. Spontaneous order is an enabling condition, allowing each individual to
pursue his or her self-transformation with minimal interference from others
and to maximum mutual benefit from the resulting diversity. "
Again as long as it is responsible to Gaia and other living life forms I
agree with this.
I agree with these principles.
>
>> in about 15% disagreement.
>
>What parts?
That there is no Divinity....that immortality is possible nor necessarily
desireable.
I think that the resistance that a lot of extropians have to the idea of
Divinity is rooted in a Judeo-Xtian point of view of said Divinity. I
don't view Divinity as a transcendant being however, that is interfering
with our lives, and judging our performance, etc. (like the Xtian
monotheistic God). I am not a Christian. My view of Divinity is that it
is evolving and we are part of that evolution...and that we are co
creators.... Divinity is conscious through us and other self reflexive
beings. My view of Divinity is much more similar to hmmmm....Valentine
Michaels Smiths? :) I am a panentheist. I am also a polytheist....in
that I believe that all beings are manifestations of Divinity....thus we
are all God/dess, co-creators (who also mess up at times), and the universe
is an infinite creatrix. To me, it's this realization which allows us to
become as fully actualized as possible.
Transhuman as it were.
I don't really think it's that far off from Extropianism. We just might be
looking at the same thing through slightly different lenses. I don't see
why spirituality necessarily conflicts with the basic principles of
extropianism. In fact, my particular brand of spirituality engenders
*more* responsibility for our evolvement and lives than less....If we are
all Divine then we all have the potential to manifest anything we want.
And we are ultimately responsible for what we manifest.
>
>>I can't understand the complete and utter rejection of
>> such things as Shamanic or spiritual experience...
>>Spirituality doesn't have to mean dogmatism
>
>How about the complete an utter rejection of words that are easily
construed as being dogmatic?
Why invent a new language? People will always misinterpret. Why would
anyone construe the word Shamanic or Spirituality as "dogmatic"? The first
is an adjective the second is a noun.
>The word spirit is easily misinterpreted as many people have thier own
idea of what it is.
Er I didn't exactly say "spirit" but I guess it is implicit in Spirituality.
Spirit - spiritus, latin for "breathe". In my context, the essence of that
which infuses life. The energy that each being has. Spirituality is
getting in touch with that energy, working with it, and getting in touch
with energy of other living things. I may do this through ritual practices
that are Shamanic in nature. I may do it when I create something. It
really doesn't make much difference. Why do I like ritual? Because I like
getting in that particular part of my consciousness. IE...it's fun.
>If you can find scientific words that refer to things such as "soul"
I'll use what words I choose to.
> I encourage you to use them.
>I believe soul refers to a concept of self.
I disagree. I think there is more to it than that.
>I believe I am what I know
> (the sum of my knowledge, memories, experience, etc).
>Therefore what contains my memories is my soul.
>I would be inclined to say it is my brain.
I wouldn't minimalize all that you are to just your brain. You are
comprised of many organs, your body has intelligence, your heart has
intelligence, your cells throughout your body communicate with each other.
I think the brain is the pinnacle of the intelligence of your body, but it
is not the only source. Did you know your heart has it's own nervous
system that interacts with the central nervous system? That certain
emotions, that are heart centered, like love, compassion, etc., actually
increase your immuno response and help to calm and entrain your
parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems? That emotional
"heartbreak" can actually cause physical scarring to the heart? That
people really can die of a broken heart? Don't scoff...this is what 30
years of research into cardiology has discovered. I refered to site that
does this kind of research in a previous post but if you are interested I
will post it again.
I really think that we are more than just the brain, wondrous enough as it
is. I think before we start thinking about removing organs that we fully
understand why they are there and what part of "you" you are removing.
>If you believe you will be reincarnated is it correct to say you will die?>
Probably not. I should probably say recycled :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:05 MST