[ExI] san jose tech museum's take on the singularity
darren.greer3 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 15:22:18 UTC 2010
"So the temptation is to get one's philosophy redefined as a religion, even
if it really isn't one. I recognize the temptation, but my ethical
intuition tells me this is wrong."
I agree. That was the mistake the Buddhists made, when the philosophy was
moving into China and it was altered to fit with Confucian ancestral beliefs
for an easier transition. And look what happened there. What began as a
vital and imperative world view ended up as a stale and meaningless
collection of moral and social prescripts loosely held together by ritually
and culturally determined practices of meditation and mindfulness.
I think I realized this most fully when I was in Asia on Buddha's birthday,
which was celebrated with all the boring and stultifying solemnity of
Christmas in the West. I resolved the dissonance by finding a bar that
remained open and getting drunk.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > ...On Behalf Of John Grigg
> > Subject: Re: [ExI] san jose tech museum's take on the singularity
> > ...
> > >...But family is here and now, and gone far too soon... spike
> > >>>
> > Spike, this is so true.
> > We should run Mormon Church-style television ads that show a
> > happy family as a honey-voiced narrator says...
> > "To learn more about the Singularity, please go to
> > www.singularityforabetterlife.com" "A message from your
> > friends, the transhumanists." John : )
> John this has occurred to me, but this whole approach is a double-edged
> sword, and I am reluctant to even explore it. Look at what we have seen
> happen in the world of religion. We had seen a "religion" develop in
> times which does not involve (as far as I can tell) a deity, but rather is
> remarkably robust business. Yet an honest man, one of our own, was
> imprisoned for the crime of interfering with it. Interfering with a
> religion! Who even knew that was illegal? Who even knew what the hell it
> We have seen an apparently non-stoned US supreme court justice soberly and
> sincerely question whether it is first amendment free speech to burn a
> particular religion's favorite book:
> We have seen a religion become considered almost as a race, so that
> criticism of it has become the practical equivalent to racism. How did
> So the temptation is to get one's philosophy redefined as a religion, even
> if it really isn't one. I recognize the temptation, but my ethical
> intuition tells me this is wrong.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat