[extropy-chat] Still confused:)

[Anna Taylor]

Samantha wrote:
Define please.  I don't see why a shift of language modality is or is
likely to be religious.

Anna writes:
I agree, I don't think people should look at Transhumanism as a
religion, I think people should look at it as a new way of thinking.
A new language.

Samantha wrote:
Increasingly I believe the masses are irrelevant and the attempt to
convince them is an utter waste of precious time and resources.

Anna:
I don't agree.  Technology will continue to progress, people need to
know this, as well as all the negative and positive outcomes of
technology.

Samantha:
Importance may only be assessed in a context of values, possibilities
and so on.  What we want is part of "what is true".

Anna:
Exactly.  That's what i'm still confused about.  What is true within
the framework of Tranhumanism and how to describe it to the masses?

Samantha:
The funds are out there and targeting them successfully does not
require convincing the masses of anything as I see it.

Anna:
In my opinion, the masses are the ones that decide if something is
successful or not.
If you want to fund a project like cryonics, you would need mass
support and at the present time I don't think it's really a topic that
interests the masses.
If you bulk the projects together and call it Transhumanism, make it a
good cause and then try to get the masses interested, I believe that
the separate projects will likely benefit in return.
But then again, i'm still confused and trying to figure out exactly
how I see Transhumanism, so I may be way off.

Just an opinion
Anna:)



On 9/4/06, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Define please.  I don't see why a shift of language modality is or is
> likely to be religious.
>
> Anna responds:
> Religion and technology have nothing to do with each other.
> Information is the response given.
> Technology is the futur.
> Religion is the past.
> How can you create a scenerio that involves the both?
>
> Language.
> I don't believe that a shift in language has anything
> to do with religion, at this time.
> Last year, I posted a response on "Why red is red".
>
> I now understand, why green, is a color.
> Why is green, green?
> Some will Tell me what compares to the color green;
> nature, the leaves, the grass and money.
> Some will see what THEIR green is;
> My desk, my plant, my listerine package.
> Some will ask why is green, green.
> Universally, in at some point, green has been determined
> as that, green=green.
> This is a what point I would like to begin with, not the
> past explanations.
>
> Transhumanists=Technology
> Does everybody agree?
>
> One piece of the puzzle?
>
> Anna:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Green is nothing more than a word.
> A word that has been accepted universally.
> Isn't it important to understand why words become
> universally known.
>
> If you take a word like "green" and translate it,
> it would become "vert or whatever" but universally
> it still means the same.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If I phrase my own transhumanist beliefs in a religious framework,
> > > I end up with something like the following (feel free to copy it):
> > >
> > > "If we are God's children, I believe we should grow up. If there
> > >   are no gods (yet), I believe we should try to fill that void."
> >
> > I have been asking "What happens when the 'children of God' grow up?"
> > since I was 10.  The question is usually not taken kindly much less
> > pondered.  Religions largely don't seem to be about any real
> > exploration or truth seeking, oddly enough.
> >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I realize that might not actually help much to convince
> > > the masses :)
> >
> > Increasingly I believe the masses are irrelevant and the attempt to
> > convince them is an utter waste of precious time and resources.   I do
> > not like this conclusion of mine but that doesn't entitle me to reject
> > it.
> >
> > > What is important?  What you want to be true, or what is true?
> >
> > Importance may only be assessed in a context of values, possibilities
> > and so on.  What we want is part of "what is true".   Please clarify
> > what you wanted to ask.
> >
> > - samantha
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>