[extropy-chat] Euphamism and Reality - a polite response to Mr. Paatsch. The Problem of Pain.

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jun 22, 2005, at 9:54 AM, John-C-Wright at sff.net wrote:
> Here is why: logically, creatures either will have total control of  
> their
> environment, or else will be prey to fortune and suffer meaningless  
> accidents
> because they lack total control. Granting fallen man total control  
> of his
> environment would be tantamount to Hell. Just imagine what we would  
> do to each
> other if all matter and energy obeyed our each thought. Hence,  
> mercy grants us
> less than total control, but this leaves us open to pointless  
> accidents and
> suffering that serves no specific judicial or medicinal purpose. It  
> is a
> meaningless general suffering brought about as a logical  
> consequence of our
> fallen estate.

Yes.  That point was made well by the oldie but goodie, Forbidden  
Planet.

>
> That said, some pain, at least, is medicinal. I would still be an  
> atheist had I
> not suffered what, to outside observers, looked like a frightening  
> and mortal
> ordeal: I had a stroke. I say to outside observers because, oddly  
> enough, that
> tribulation was the happiest day of my life. I took no pain  
> killers, no drugs,
> but the joy in my heart drove all pain away. During those days, the  
> illusion,
> for me, was broken; and, even now, it has less power to do me hurt  
> or cause me
> fear than before.

I assume you are aware of the capacity of the human brain to derive  
quite impressive often mystical experiences during near death  
episodes.   I trust you base your faith on a bit more than these  
trauma induced experiences.

>
> That said, some pain, at least, is illusionary. Death I hold to be  
> an illusion:
> we don’t die. The fear and pain surrounding this great horror of  
> mortality will
> vanish like a nightmare upon waking to immortality; and an infinite  
> bliss will
> surrounded the blessed souls in the promised life to come. Compared  
> to that, our
> current pains will seem small things indeed.
>

As extropian I hold that immortality needs to be earned either by  
ourselves or introduced by the sim creator.   As I have no direct  
proof that immortality already is present it is only prudent to  
attempt to achieve ti by scientific means.

> There is a fourth and final answer which is purely mystical. I live  
> in the hope
> that, somehow, in a fashion unknown to me, the promise that all  
> tears will be
> wiped away, and all harmed healed, shall come to pass.
>

As do I but I believe it is up to sentient creatures like ourselves  
to achieve this to the degree it can be achieved.

> I do not expect this answer to be sufficient to convince a skeptic:  
> it is merely
> a brief recital of a conclusion to which no supporting proof is  
> given. I offer
> it here merely to contradict the slander against my intellectual  
> courage. I do
> not dodge questions, although, from time to time, politely, I  
> attempt to spare
> people from the torment of listening to me drone on.
>
> Q: On the contrary you will have to be on your very best behavior
> for me to feel that I am not wasting my time talking to
> you, or worse, that I might be giving a close minded
> rhetorican and professional pest the tools to spread the
> next generation of bullshit to the faithful.
>
> A: One of the more dubious pleasures of talking to Extropians is  
> that, with one
> or two shining exceptions, none of you think it odd or rude to halt  
> in the
> middle of a philosophical discussion on some topic utterly  
> unrelated to
> Christianity, to express your contempt for me, and hatred and  
> malice for my
> Church and my faith. It is done all the time, unconsciously, as  
> automatically as
> blessing someone when he sneezes.

I have not seen a lot of contempt addressed toward you personally.   
Certainly I and others have spend considerable effort and time in  
attempted dialog on and off list precisely out of respect for the  
fine mind your work makes obvious you possess.   As I have mentioned  
I believe that your experience is leading you to twist yourself into  
an intellectual pretzel in order to overlay a fairly conventional  
Christian interpretation on it.   From my own experience I know that  
is dangerous and does not do justice to the truth or yourself.

The Church has earned quite a bit of contempt although not of the  
shallow variety often seen.  Much that is rich and important is often  
simply ignored and straw man characterizations attacked.  But many in  
these parts have much experience and knowledge of the breadth of  
Christianity and other religions behind their surface words also.  I  
for one never ever criticize it automatically or gratuitously.

Your Church?  You take on a lot when you claim that complex and  
deeply troubled institution as yours.  You also err if you take  
criticism of the Church or of your beliefs as an attack on your person.

>
> The phenomena is a peculiar one and merits study. Myself, I suspect  
> the cause is
> supernatural rather than psychological or philosophical.

This is sheer rot of the brain.  Human characteristics plus actual  
wrongs of the Church and religious thinking generally are quite  
sufficient to explain it without invoking supernatural causes.  For  
shame!  You have much too fine a brain to sink to such.

>
>
> I don’t mind. We get points for it, you know. “Blessed are you when  
> men revile
> you, and persecute you, and speak all manner of evil against you  
> falsely because
> of me.”
>

Oh Puh-leze.   You are not blessed when you are reviled for your  
actual errors.  Do you really think that verse even refers to being  
spoke badly of for adhering to a bunch of dogma that did not exist at  
the time the words were uttered?  To you believe that this mere dogma  
created by men often in bitter and all too human conflict is even  
what was being referred to?


> Q: If you believe in God you might do well to be careful
> of the prohibitions and consequence of bearing false
> witness.
>
> A: Throat-clearing.
>

And you claiming supernatural significance isn't?

> Q: (responding to “Please note that no one in this discussion  
> misunderstood to
> which unborn human entity my word referred.”) You are guessing that  
> no one
> misunderstood it. Whether readers did or not you cannot know.
>
> A: Excuse me, but is your argument based on the idea that when I  
> used the word
> “child” some people reading my words thought I was referring not to  
> the child in
> the womb in the hypothetical, but to some other, unrelated child,  
> such as a
> cousin or something?
>
> That's silly.
>

Of course it is.  So why did you create such a silly interpretation?
>

> Q: What is clear is that you persisted with a term that others  
> found objectionable.
>
> A: Certainly. Logic said that their objections were invalid, merely  
> emotional,
> unworthy of serious consideration.
>

You are far too legalistic to actually understand and respond to what  
was meant in my opinion.  In my opinion you are too legalistic to  
grasp the spirit rather than the letter of spiritual notions also.   
At least that is my impression to date.

> I am slightly embarrassed that honor requires me to continue in  
> this so-called
> discussion, where the partisans of Political Correctness have  
> actually achieved
> their goal of derailing the original conversation (which was about  
> moral
> relativity; abortion was brought up only as a tangential example.)
>

My dear sir, it is you yourself who ran the original discussion well  
off the rails in this direction and are still not done mucking about  
in this particular swamp.

> The economics of the situation reward such behavior: it is like  
> kicking over a
> chessboard when in check. If the partisans of Political Correctness  
> can raise
> such a stink over non-meritorious arguments, men of less patience  
> and fortitude
> than myself will simply accede to their language-demeaning  
> practices, it not
> being worth their time to contest the imposition. Eventually, all  
> men will adopt
> Newspeak, and rational criticism of Big Brother will become  
> grammatically
> impossible (which is the sole point of Newspeak, after all).
>

Further into the weeds you go.  Excuse me if I do not have the  
patience to come in after you.

- samantha