Advertisement
I want to get opinions from those identifying themselves as transhumanist, post-humanist, extropian or alike, on neo-paganism and the people who practice it.
You might guess from my handle that I straddle the fence on this subject. I think there is a lot in each movement that the other desperately needs. I’m in the process of putting together ideas for an intentional community (IC) that will incorporate the best of both, along with other ideas. I expect this is one area where there will be a lot of problems, so I want to get an idea of what I’m going to be dealing with.
If you identify as part of the transhumanist, etc movement, I want your opinions, good and bad.
You might guess from my handle that I straddle the fence on this subject. I think there is a lot in each movement that the other desperately needs. I’m in the process of putting together ideas for an intentional community (IC) that will incorporate the best of both, along with other ideas. I expect this is one area where there will be a lot of problems, so I want to get an idea of what I’m going to be dealing with.
If you identify as part of the transhumanist, etc movement, I want your opinions, good and bad.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Sun, July 27, 2008 - 12:29 AMI'm very interested in shamanism and wicca and the neo paganism movement.
I'm very interested in eclecticism.
Normally, I'm very interested in merging different paradigms - I am a very eclectic person.
I have to confess that my inner trans humanist and my inner neo pagan just don't hang out together.
Frankly, I'm sort of amazed that anybody would try such a combination. And gratified that you have, and, reported it back to me.
Its kind of like hearing about an experiment with grapefruit/ apple pie. Not something you'd expect anybody to put in one
meal together, let alone the same dish.
Sounds kind of disgusting. but then, who knows? maybe it works fine if you get the ratio right.
no clue. Say, this is a fine topic for my eclecticism tribe. you oughta check that out.
Which primary axioms of neo paganism and transhumanism are you trying to cross breed, anyhow??????
?????????????????
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Sun, July 27, 2008 - 9:09 AMThanks for your words of support and your reply!
>>Which primary axioms of neo paganism and transhumanism are you trying to
>>cross breed, anyhow??????
Would you mind very much if I saved my reply to this one till I get more opinions? I don't want to influence, alter or discourage anyone from replying and don't want to drive off any negative opinions. Thanks! -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Sun, July 27, 2008 - 11:03 AMI have practiced/espoused both for many years, I'm intrigued as to what responses you get.
Many of the pagans I practice with are rabidly anti-tech, while many of the transhumanist types I know pooh-pooh the pagan path as superstitious claptrap.
I recognize pagan/alternative practices as metaphorical, and for me an essential outlet for me to express the spirituality meme.
I look at the transhumanist philosophy as the essential means to transcend out genetic evlutionary path before our species eradicates itself, and tech is an integral part of that.
That said, I find myself quite isolated in synthesizing these beLIEf systems...
-
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Sun, July 27, 2008 - 11:17 AMPersonally, I see no conflict at all.
I'll comment more later (and read all these cool comments) - just in a hurry now. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Mon, July 28, 2008 - 3:57 AMWould you mind very much if I saved my reply to this one till I get more opinions? I don't want to influence, alter or discourage anyone from replying and don't want to drive off any negative opinions. Thanks!
---------
dude, like holy crow, your getting responses on this nearly dead tribe.
stir the pot. stir. wake the dead. GONG GONG GONG....
(continue on then. but i hope ya answer eventually.)
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism (cross post)
Sat, August 2, 2008 - 6:49 PMI want to thank everyone who has contributed so far. This had given me a lot to think about. One thing I realize it that I'm going to have to learn to explain myself a lot better. I have too much mental shorthand running through my head (and we’re not yet at a point where I can let you look in their directly, but believe me, you wouldn’t want to, the place is a mess).
I’ve read Transhumanist opinions of Neo-Pagans as superstitious, fuzzy thinking, dirt-worshiping hippies and Neo-Pagan opinions of Transhumanists as, well, the Borg! After reading your responses, I’m seeing that these opinions aren’t as universal as I feared.
While basically, Transhumanism is about using technology to enhance ourselves and Neo-Paganism is the attempt to revive pre-Christian, indigenous European religions, each is associated with a wide range of interests and beliefs.
Some of the interests associated with Transhumanism are nano-technology, cryonics and genetic engineering. There is a strong, athestic, rationalistic streak running through it.
Neo-Paganism is often associated with things like environmentalism, organic/sustainable living and culture and New-Age Spirituality.
(Okay, this is way over-simplified, but did you want to wait another couple weeks for a response?)
I think Transhumanism is missing an important spiritual aspect. In 1966 the cover of Time read “God is Dead”. It had an article on a movement of people who believed that we no longer need God or religion or spirituality. Yet today, church membership is up and continuing to rise. And while I also believe that most of the problems in the world today can be traced to somebodies religion, there is still something there that people need. Something that connects us to each other, to our lives and the world we live in, and to deeper levels of ourselves. If you want to discover more on this, Pagans ARE the people to talk to. A lot of Transhumanists get bent out of shape by anthing that even hints at the supernatural (a term I’ve never really liked anyway) but it doesn’t have to be about that at all.
I think a lot of Pagans, on the other hand, need to seriously work on their critical thinking skills.
Writing is difficult for me, especially when I’m off my meds. I’m going to post this and start of the next part. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism (cross post)
Sun, August 3, 2008 - 1:42 AMI think Transhumanism is missing an important spiritual aspect. In 1966 the cover of Time read “God is Dead”. It had an article on a movement of people who believed that we no longer need God or religion or spirituality.
-------------
The problem with this is that transhumanisms primary axioms include a sort of dogmatic atheism, at least to the extent of "spirituality is irrelevant". I'm not sure that i agree with it, in fact i disagree with it, but, i have to be honest about what the movement consists of and
where its head is at. The paradox in my mind on the other hand is that what spirituality as such actually means pragmatically is connection
to deeper levels of self an intelligence. Our culture is moving as a whole towards dumber and dumber, and this is not a good thing.
Religion and republicanism are the two paradigms most at fault for this, but consumerism and video games clearly play their own roles.
I think theres a name for that paradox. I wrote a story prescient of "total recall" and other such things like "Matrix" in which the hero builds
a virtual reality direct brain interface system and brings it to mass market. The result is his entire civilization crumbles, because when you
can experience anything you can program, who has any use for "Reality." In my version theres no "machines" and theres no "Bad guys".
Just human (alien actually) neurological nature and technology going too far till it finds that inverse flipping tipping point. The drama of the story is based on his attempts and, for the most part failures, to snap people out of it. Instead they just load their consciousness into
assorted mainframes, and their bodies die, en masse, of dehydration and starvation. You could think of this as an allegory for my real life,
because it is exactly the conversation i seem to have constantly, both with transhumanists and neopagans. What matters and what is important? Whats BS? Whats irrelevant? Where should hedonism end? What are the rational boundaries of responsibility? What is the true objective nature of subjective reality? Why can't i get 20 nerds on line to actually help me start working on technological singularities,
instead of listening to the utterly decayed propaganda of "the technological singularity"?
The difference is seemingly a small one. Agent smith is very adept at twisting things around and emasculating them till the original power
of a concept has lost its capacity for real empowerment. A technological singularity is potentially a made to order basement universe, infinite free energy, and instantaneous travel across intergalactic distances, all rolled into one. The "Technological singularity" is a willful
propaganda distortion which almost everybody buys into, which is the idea of technology achieving a sort of tipping point into technology 2.0.
The same thing goes on with neopagans. no matter how many times i try to point out that the 4 quarters really referred to the 4 main brain wave states of consciousness, theres not a neopagan organization in this country i know of thats not utterly trapped in beta brainwave activities, or, the opposite, drug induced theta hedonism.
Real spirituality meets real technology when we face the reality that "spirituality" is just a gear of the brain, and ritual is the clutch.
Where Taoism meets neopaganism and shamanism meets quantum mechanics, we find that spirituality is really about tuning the self
into the all; using sentience itself as the surface of the eyeball.
Second sight is not a mystery and its not impossible to obtain. It is a whole shit load of work, which neopagans in general don't do because they think its all about having a good time.
----------------
Yet today, church membership is up and continuing to rise.
-----------
There are numerous socio-economic reasons for that, and back to the root problem which is that technology toys have the capacity to ruin
civilization by offering sufficient distractions to make us all stupid.
------------
And while I also believe that most of the problems in the world today can be traced to somebodies religion,
-----------
An understatement i won't try to dive into at this moment.
-----------
there is still something there that people need.
---------
This is not true. They don't need any of that. They are fooled into thinking that they can meet needs with it, but its bait and switch.
All religion ever does is promise you spirituality, sucker you for faith and obedience, and hit you up for stupidity tax.
It doesn't deliver spirituality, and if it did, the first thing god would tell you is, RUN AWAY FROM THE CON ARTISTS!
----------
Something that connects us to each other, to our lives and the world we live in, and to deeper levels of ourselves.
---------
It does provide illusory levels of community, and since they took community away from us by renaming it communism and diabolizing it,
that means a lot to the mammalian brain, which is why ,most people keep going back; group belongingess and membership.
----------
If you want to discover more on this, Pagans ARE the people to talk to.
-----------
I disagree. I used to think so, but my real experiences lead me to believe that pagans are in general just as trapped in dogma and lazyness
as christians or anybody else.
----------
A lot of Transhumanists get bent out of shape by anything that even hints at the supernatural (a term I’ve never really liked anyway) but it doesn’t have to be about that at all.
---------
Theres a place where technology meets spiritituality, and the paradox is that only crossing both inner thresholds gives you real access
to that new total domain. Technology 2.0 is level two because it encompasses spiritual reality rather than fighting or denying it, and thus
advances because it can think about and operate on the levels of reality previously termed "meta" physics. To be blunt, for instance,
the means by which to create an immersion level neural interface will only be accessible and understandable to a real, high grade shaman.
The reverse is also true. Spirituality 2.0 is that level higher because it incorporates science, rather than fighting it, and advances to the level
of spiritual realism, pragmatism, and genuine sanity.
Its exciting to think that the transhumanism tribe could be poised to explore this, but then, maybe i'm just reading into this potential exploration a whole lot more than what you were looking for.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Fri, August 8, 2008 - 12:01 AM>>The problem with this is that transhumanisms primary axioms include a
>>sort of dogmatic atheism, at least to the extent of "spirituality is irrelevant".
This is why I think it is so important to get Pagans into the mix.
>>Real spirituality meets real technology when we face the reality that "spirituality"
>>is just a gear of the brain, and ritual is the clutch. Where Taoism meets
>>neopaganism and shamanism meets quantum mechanics, we find that
>>spirituality is really about tuning the self into the all; using sentience itself
>>as the surface of the eyeball.
You seem to have a lot of answers. I don’t. I just some ideas and some directions. I want to explore these things, but I have no idea where it’ll end up.
>>there is still something there that people need.
>>---------
>>This is not true. They don't need any of that. They are fooled into thinking that they
>>can meet needs with it, but its bait and switch. All religion ever does is promise you
>>spirituality, sucker you for faith and obedience, >>and hit you up for stupidity tax.
>>It doesn't deliver spirituality, and if it did, the first thing god would tell you is, RUN >>AWAY FROM THE CON ARTISTS!
>>----------
>>Something that connects us to each other, to our lives and the world we live in, and to >>deeper levels of ourselves.
>>---------
>>It does provide illusory levels of community, and since they took community away
>>from us by renaming it communism and diabolizing it, that means a lot to the
>>mammalian brain, which is why ,most people keep going back; group belongingess
>>and membership.
I’m having a little trouble following you here. On the one hand, it sounds like you’re saying we don’t need spirituality. On the other, it sounds like you’re saying that they’re not providing real spirituality. On the other hand, it sounds like you’re saying that this “means a lot to the mammalian brain” (a lot of hands here). I think one reason it isn’t clear what you’re responding to is that it isn’t clear what I’m referring to in the first place when I say “something”. I don’t know what “it” is, but there is something people keep searching for. I want to find out and I think the best way is to go into this with an open mind.
>>Its exciting to think that the transhumanism tribe could be poised to explore
>>this, but then, maybe i'm just reading into this potential exploration a whole
>>lot more than what you were looking for.
Oh, I am looking for so very, very much! I am looking for a community with a mind-set that we will need to survive into the future. Do you know what this will look like when we have achieved it?
I have no idea. I have some ideas on what to try and directions to explore (like Quasimodo used to tell people “I just have a hunch.”) and I would gladly discard any preconceived notions I have if it meant finding better ideas.
I remember hearing a Christian saying that if he ever did find out there really was no God, he wouldn’t want to go on living. I would rather know what the truth is than for it to be any particular thing. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Fri, August 8, 2008 - 1:24 AM
You seem to have a lot of answers. I don’t. I just some ideas and some directions. I want to explore these things, but I have no idea where it’ll end up.
------------
I do have a lot of answers. This particular thought experiment is one you started. So i don't know where it leads either. But i am highly eclectic in general and these are two paradigms which i am already familiar with. So i'm mixing pretty quick after your initial sort of cue.
The reason why i kept them in separate boxes is it seems most transhumanists prefer it that way.
--------------
I’m having a little trouble following you here. On the one hand, it sounds like you’re saying we don’t need spirituality.
-----------
Its hard to know what that means exactly given how different people define "spirituality". I'm a metaphysical phenomenonologist.
I'm not interested in the rhetoric, i just want to know the state of consciousness and how to get there rationally. Spirituality is cool
and all especially if its true or not. Otherwise it can be totally irrelevant. In other words, right action is the same wether or not spirit exists,
so in truth there is no difference if you are a pragmatist.
To put it another way, i can package spirituality genuine enough to work in terms exclusive to science. If thats what it takes for an Atheist
to "Get it" then i'm glad to paint it over in whatever neon colors catch their eye.
The flip side is i am personally extremely spiritual and i have a very direct access to spiritual realities which transcends the alleged requirement of faith or etc. I have genuine spiritual experiences, i don't need any authority to tell me "how.".
Religion is 1 part spirituality, 1 part social engineering, and 10 parts politics, so for anything useful, its dead on arrival. All of it is wonderful,
but none of it really works, because agent smiths real job is to to block all the exits out of the matrix.
---------
On the other, it sounds like you’re saying that they’re not providing real spirituality.
-----------
Yes.
---------
On the other hand, it sounds like you’re saying that this “means a lot to the mammalian brain” (a lot of hands here).
--------
Forget spirituality and just focus on neuroscience. Right action is psychonuatics. The question of soul is moot. Explore the psyche.
---------
I think one reason it isn’t clear what you’re responding to is that it isn’t clear what I’m referring to in the first place when I say “something”. I don’t know what “it” is, but there is something people keep searching for.
---------
The truth.
---------
I want to find out and I think the best way is to go into this with an open mind.
----------
yes, thats always a big part of it.
-----------
Oh, I am looking for so very, very much! I am looking for a community with a mind-set that we will need to survive into the future. Do you know what this will look like when we have achieved it?
-----------
I have a crystal ball which sees so many possible futures.
Which one do you want to talk about?
-----------
I have no idea. I have some ideas on what to try and directions to explore (like Quasimodo used to tell people “I just have a hunch.”) and I would gladly discard any preconceived notions I have if it meant finding better ideas.
-------------
Well, the place to start is back at square 1. You have two paradigms and you wish to create a lucid cross fertilization.
Fine. Make two lists of primary axioms to a length of 100 axioms each and then see if you can fit anything together between sets.
Then iterate details to 1000 axioms apeice and then see if you can fit the puzzle bits together between sets.
My gift is i can see connections most people can't. So your job is to make your starter lists of axioms and then i'll link ya up some connections.
------------
I remember hearing a Christian saying that if he ever did find out there really was no God, he wouldn’t want to go on living. I would rather know what the truth is than for it to be any particular thing.
----------
i know the truth. its both incredible and a lot less dramatic than some people would like.
lol.
There is no religious god. god is dead. long live god. Heaven is empty. We are all fallen angels. The universe is a cosmic scalar fractal hologram the whole of which is conscious. And you are not separate from it, you are holographically part of everything.
There is no cosmic parent. There is no heaven. There is no hell. Both are locations in tiferet and illusions we create en masse as tiferets
accidental gods. All alone is all we all are. Each one of us is unique. Nobody lives forever. Thou art God.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Fri, August 8, 2008 - 8:42 AM>You seem to have a lot of answers.
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
- Village slogan, "The Prisoner" -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Fri, August 8, 2008 - 8:50 AMQuestions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
------------
whoa. deep.
perhaps even a bit more true than is comfortable.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Sun, August 10, 2008 - 7:27 AM>>Well, the place to start is back at square 1. You have two paradigms and you wish
>>to create a lucid cross fertilization. Fine. Make two lists of primary axioms to a length
>>of 100 axioms each and then see if you can fit anything together between sets. Then
>>iterate details to 1000 axioms apeice and then see if you can fit the puzzle bits together
>>between sets.
Basically what you're describing is the start of a human-based genetic algorithm (HBGA). This is one of the techniques I want to use to develop and refine this group. It is a very powerful technique that I'm still just learning about and don't yet have any experience using, but from what I've been reading, the more people you get working on it, the better the results.
I've been looking at MIT's Center for Collective Intelligence website. There is a quote there I like.
The key question we’re using to organize our work is: How can people and
computers be connected so that collectively they act more intelligently than any
individual, group, or computer has ever done before?
Have you ever been involved in an HBGA? I want to set one up, get a lot of people in on it and throw in some other concepts as well. There may also be ideas that other people in this would want to throw into the mix.
I finished downloading, installing Cmap Tools for concept mapping and am starting to figure it out. I just finished the start of a concept map on collaboration. It's a little rough, but it's a start. You can get Cmap tools at:
cmap.ihmc.us/
It is free to use for individuals. I'm not sure if this will end up being one of the tools the community uses, but it looks like a good place to start.
Now I need to find other collaborative software, such as a good HBGA and get a group of people to start using it. I think it is about time to push this puppy out of the nest. If you want to see what I've got so far, look at:
tribes.tribe.net/neotopia1
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Mon, September 1, 2008 - 9:15 AMpaganism is a deliberately retro-progressive maneuver ...that is, it is the opposite of a transcendent maneuver .
it falls into the class of things which include "The S.C.A.", "Trek Conventions", and "Obsessing over Jimmy Carter".
I Therefore suggest that you begin a tribe for creatively reenacting the Carter administration in Klingon as an alternative to posting things in this tribe which have nothing to do with the subject it was created to explore.
thank you. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 5:09 AMYou are clearly mistaken: Paganism is not a retro-progressive maneuver.
Paganism is a term used to describe a wide variety of religious & quasi-religious belief systems, some of them admittedly quite retro-progressive, but some of them not. In fact, many are quite, as you say, transcendent (or at least aspire to be). While there is doubtless overlap between certain pagan beliefs and Trekkies, not all trekkies are pagans and not all pagans are trekkies. Or SCAs. Or Carter aficionados.
Of course, none of that applies if your personal belief system tells you that anyone with any religious beliefs of any kind are retro-progressive, and therefore banned from the transhumanist club. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Tue, September 2, 2008 - 9:47 AMAm I?
Am I trying to ban anyone?
Paganism (proper) IS a retro-regressive maneuver. And I hardly agree that any quasi-religious belief system is necessarily Paganism but that's a separate debate now isn't it.
Transhumanism is about moving beyond the human condition as an exoneration OF the human condition, perhaps even an evocation of the human condition.
So long as Paganism is Paganism and not transhumanism it cannot be transhumanist.
They are different things completely. I am not saying that one who takes an interest in both things should be banned, what i am saying is that it they are not the same.
in every new movement there are always a multitude of people who are more than happy to parasitically try to infiltrate and hence associate their belief systems with "fresh blood".
Let Transhumanism be Transhumanism, and let Paganism be Paganism. but do not claim they are the same, for they are not.
If you had some belief which itself was self progressive in some respect so that the belief system was adaptively mutating along with the man, then you COULD rightfully say it was Transhumanist, however the more true that is the more that ideal would just become Transhumanism.
Paganism and Transhumanism are competing ideologies, not brothers. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 4:46 AMPerhaps I was unclear. Allow me to rectify any misunderstandings based on sloppy wording on my part:
1) I said nothing about you trying to ban anyone. I asked, if you thought anyone who had any religious beliefs was by default retro-progressive and therefore "banned', figuratively speaking, from the transhumanist club (nothing about actually banning anyone from this tribe). My apologies for use of the word "banned". I thought my usage was clear, but obviously I was mistaken.
2) I never said that "any quasi-religious belief system is necessarily paganism". What I said was "Paganism is a term used to describe a WIDE VARIETY of religious & quasi-religious belief systems, some of them admittedly quite retro-progressive, but some of them not" (as opposed to "paganism is a term used to describe ANY religious or quasi-religious belief system"). That was clear, so I'm not sure why it was misunderstood.
That said, you have not provided any support for your assertion that "paganism is a deliberately retro-progressive maneuver ", you have only repeated your assertion, which does not make it true.
Further, I never claimed anywhere that paganism and transhumanism are the same. I only disputed your assertion that paganism is necessarily retro-progressive, thus rendering paganism & transhumanism mutually exclusive.
So, with regard to the initial query, we're both on record. You think paganism & transhumanism are incompatible, I think transhumanism is compatible with certain strains of paganism (though certainly not all belief systems that fall under the wider rubric of "paganism"). -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 6:07 AMOK, here is how wikipedia describes "Paganism"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
and here are few other sources in case you dispute Wikipedia's reference to Folk Religion. (I don't have anything against Folk Religion BTW) Hopefully this is an adequate foundation for my forthcoming statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# any of various religions other than Christianity or Judaism or Islamism
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic") is a term which, from a Western perspective, has modern connotations of spiritual practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
# Local religions practiced before the introduction of Christianity; A class of religions often associated with nature rituals
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paganism
# A religious belief characterized by a pantheon of deities largely representing the forces of nature. Ancient civilizations initially had no ...
hinduism.suite101.com/article.cfm/glossary_m_to_p
# This is a broad, general term for nature-centered, polytheistic religions.
paganismwicca.suite101.com/article.cfm/pagan_terms
# a collective term for all non-Abrahamic forms of Tradition, but usually reserved for ethnocentric belief systems outside the "world ...
poluss.org/english/dictionary.htm
# a term traditionally used to refer generally to all religions other than Christianity.
www.godswordforyou.com/glossary...ry/p.html
# An ‘umbrella’ term referring to a collective group of spiritualities, religions and traditions which all celebrate the experience of Life and ...
www.members.optusnet.com.au/wildwo...ary.htm
# Pagans have no set rules against premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, or nudity. However, sex is viewed as the generative force in nature and is seen by most pagans as something utterly sacred. The physical act of love is to be approached with great respect and responsibility. ...
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Chastity
# It is perhaps more accurate to use the term ‘neo-pagan’ as the most common form of pagan religion is a reconnection with pre-Christian earth ...
www.apachetears.co.uk/index.php
# New life, new day./ A half-pilgrim saw it as a rabbiter/ poaching in wood sees/ primeval magic among the trees (CP113). ...
med-vetacupuncture.org/english/vet/holist3.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the references to Transhumanism definitions and descriptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
and because you might want to dispute Wikipedia here are some more.
# The philosophy which believes in the possibility and desirability of ethically enhancing humans.
www.humanists.net/resources/glossary.htm
# philosophies of life (such as Extropianism) that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently ...
www.nanotech-industries.com/indust...rms.php
# Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+), a term often used as a synonym for "human enhancement", is an international intellectual and ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
# a philosophy favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transhumanism
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you took the time to at least scan the references, you will see that the two Ideologies are actualy at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. Really any Ideology rooted in folk religion would be.
Does this mean that someone who has transhumanist Ideals cannot be a pagan or the reverse? Of course not people do all sorts of things that are inconsistent with each other. Does the fact that it is possible to hold the two ideologies simultaneously make it consistant to do so, or mean that the two are compatible?
No it does not.
All it means is that man is dynamic/hypocritical/complex (pick the slant you like best).
But you see, if I remove 50 percent of the words from a sentence it isn't the same sentence anymore.
and if I remove 50 percent of the values from a folk religion so I can pretend that the folk religion is compatible with my Transhumanist Ideals, then it isn't the same religion. In fact even if i remove a very tiny piece from a whole of any kind it stops being what it was.
So , now you want me to support my assertion that Paganism is ideologically regressive? That might be hard since it is a question of value.
What I can do is what I have done: Show that they are different Ideologies with (if any) few compatible values.
What can be said is that Paganism for the largest part (if we are to speak in majority defining generalities) though not exclusively, seeks largely a return to and a harmony with nature and attempts to actualize this value through a variety of rituals and spiritual dogmas.
For the greatest part Paganism seeks to *get into touch with* where Transhumanism might only by a stretch of the term in some theoretical Transhumanist scenario INCLUDE the practice. this property however of Transhumanism to remain elastic enough to encompass under certain circumstances certain views of other Ideologies, does not make it the same really in any respect.
is this more clear for you? If i missed anything let me know i will try to answer clearly.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 6:14 AMAs an afterthought, I DO whole heartedly think that Transhumanism desperately needs to address respect and integrate general spirituality, toward the end of perhaps developing something compatible. Because as it stands on it's own it's very cold, and moving forward shouldn't come at the cost of loosing the value of the past....but then there in lies the real issue which should be discussed.
What is Transhumanist spirituality?
That would be an interesting subject to explore. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 6:17 AM"So, with regard to the initial query, we're both on record. You think paganism & transhumanism are incompatible, I think transhumanism is compatible with certain strains of paganism (though certainly not all belief systems that fall under the wider rubric of "paganism")."
And - OK - I give up
Which ones?
Why?
-
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 6:57 PMSo, with regard to the initial query, we're both on record. You think paganism & transhumanism are incompatible, I think transhumanism is compatible with certain strains of paganism (though certainly not all belief systems that fall under the wider rubric of "paganism").
------------
my position is that any compatibility that may be said to exist exists in the mind of an eclectic or a pagan. Transhumanism has a feral
wild streak of "i'm not paradigm friendly".
Some people like it that way. I'm an eclectic myself.
however, patasapien is quite correct on most counts. tho i do think that merely being a regressive paradigm does not preclude it also being a transcendent one. however the tendency or bellcurve in the matter is that even pagans are dogmatic magickalists and don't have a sense of genuine metaphysics. Again, the mass larger group and the tiny smaller group of actual functional people that the large group does not represent are relevant here. Whish is to say that paganism as a social movement in the usa at this moment is as a whole a shallow regressive movement. however there are transcendent persons who can make sense of the ideas and use them transcendently.
Which is fine, but still not what transhumanism is about.
trans = beyond
human.
All that we are, all that we think we are, all that we believe and all that we hate, all of it;
for those most part;
just a speck of irrelevancy against the larger cosmic backdrop and time.
You don't get far as a transhumanist by carrying old junk with you; and thats not transhumanism. Transhumanism is setting off alone into
the bleak jungle of the future and abandoning all cultural references and assumptions.
Now that we have identified the pillar of severity over there, is it okay with you patasapien if we get back to the mercy pillar?
I promise i'll be a purist and keep the infection off of other threads.
we can put this thread in quarantine and label it toxic?
what can we do to appease your sense of fundamental violation?
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 7:01 PMAs an afterthought, I DO whole heartedly think that Transhumanism desperately needs to address respect and integrate general spirituality, toward the end of perhaps developing something compatible. Because as it stands on it's own it's very cold, and moving forward shouldn't come at the cost of loosing the value of the past....but then there in lies the real issue which should be discussed.
What is Transhumanist spirituality?
------------
Thats the thing pata. Transhumanism is the soulless void of the potential different kinds of robots we may be come staring back at us out of the slimy froth of the many worlds.
it doesn't have a spirit; thats its problem. We best take stoick of spirit and take it with us intentionally or its going to be a sad possible
future.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Thu, September 4, 2008 - 5:59 AMI don't agree that Transhumanism has to be Soulless at all.
But this needs to be a separate topic completely.
-
-
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 3, 2008 - 6:47 PMPaganism and Transhumanism are competing ideologies, not brothers.
----------
true.
uhmmmmm....
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Thu, September 4, 2008 - 6:08 AMWhen Pagan Deities get cyborg parts or grafted genetic parts, then I'll concede.
Or maybe if there were some sort of pagan integration of machine worship...that's a possibility.
But i don't see that happening because Paganism is worship of nature (as it is and in many cases only was) while Transhumanism is obsession with biological progress, in some cases mechanical/electronic progress.
While I can imagine really screwed up fantasy novels in which some whacked out literary device could be implemented for writing about scenarios in which this strange business of happy Transhumanist-Pagan Harmony exists...cyborg mythology...the reality is that it isn't going to happen ever except in some very conflicting ways with very conflicted people.
Again I want to say that I don't have anything against Transhumanist ideals, nor do i have anything against Pagan Ideals...but no way in hell to they mix. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Tue, September 9, 2008 - 8:34 PM
I don't agree that Transhumanism has to be Soulless at all.
--------
okay, tell me your take on it.
in response to: Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
When Pagan Deities get cyborg parts or grafted genetic parts, then I'll concede.
Or maybe if there were some sort of pagan integration of machine worship...that's a possibility.
--------
what about if its the pagans that manage the first wetware because they have a better handle on metaphysics?
You seem to be missing the more possible potential crossovers.
------------
But i don't see that happening because Paganism is worship of nature (as it is and in many cases only was) while Transhumanism is obsession with biological progress, in some cases mechanical/electronic progress.
--------
Thats a super simplified view of paganism. Some forms of paganism are probably comparable to anything science has,
and based on metaphysics, not worship of anything.
---------
While I can imagine really screwed up fantasy novels in which some whacked out literary device could be implemented for writing about scenarios in which this strange business of happy Transhumanist-Pagan Harmony exists...cyborg mythology...the reality is that it isn't going to happen ever except in some very conflicting ways with very conflicted people.
-----------
I can imagine easily that frankly real shamans will succeed at some of this stuff where atheistic scientists can't because they are capable
of dealing with more abstraction and not sitting in a group think cage about all of the things they can't see as real because it isn't solid.
----------
Again I want to say that I don't have anything against Transhumanist ideals, nor do i have anything against Pagan Ideals...but no way in hell to they mix.
------------
All I want to say is read my first answer. What did i say? I said that they seemed a weird unlikely mix like some strange food concoction nobody would ever eat. I went on to say that my inner pagan and my inner transhumanist don't get along very well, and for good reason.
Then i thought about it and made a turn around to host this guys exploration.
Why are you feeling compelled to rain on his parade?
When you are really really intelligent, its easy to build bars over which other people must jump or ideas at least must jump to keep yourself protected. And sane and rational. And these things can become a sort of mental habit which is very different from but akin to snootyness.
You rush to reject so much out of hand because you are stretching for something which most people can't see. anything which fails to
stretch with you will tend to disapoint you. And you have every reason to be pissed off at the large variety of dopey useless human paradigms, and to feel protective of one which isn't half as lame as most.
However, Its sad to see a good friend accidentally become a minder- to say "your thoughts are wrong and they offend me."
Your better nature is not as a thought cop.
This tribe has been sitting dormant now for months- is it years? And somebody shows up with a topic thats sure not to have gotten discussed before. So I am inclined to humor them rather than try to shoo them over to one of my own equally dead tribes where such would be more on topic.
Now, we can do the shoo- and i can point out that i have a tribe called "interparadigm eclectics" which is created to mish mash different paradigms and maybe thats a better place for this...
But-
I think you owe the forum now like 3 or 5 new threads for just about killing this one.
-
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Tue, September 9, 2008 - 8:38 PMI'm very interested in shamanism and wicca and the neo paganism movement.
I'm very interested in eclecticism.
Normally, I'm very interested in merging different paradigms - I am a very eclectic person.
I have to confess that my inner trans humanist and my inner neo pagan just don't hang out together.
Frankly, I'm sort of amazed that anybody would try such a combination. And gratified that you have, and, reported it back to me.
Its kind of like hearing about an experiment with grapefruit/ apple pie. Not something you'd expect anybody to put in one
meal together, let alone the same dish.
Sounds kind of disgusting. but then, who knows? maybe it works fine if you get the ratio right.
no clue. Say, this is a fine topic for my eclecticism tribe. you oughta check that out.
Which primary axioms of neo paganism and transhumanism are you trying to cross breed, anyhow??????
????????????????? -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Tue, September 9, 2008 - 8:47 PM"So, with regard to the initial query, we're both on record. You think paganism & transhumanism are incompatible, I think transhumanism is compatible with certain strains of paganism (though certainly not all belief systems that fall under the wider rubric of "paganism")."
And - OK - I give up
Which ones?
Why?
--------------
Esoterica factoids. There are specifically groups of older based and less new age versions of paganism wich openly state that the "gods" are merely psychical archetypes and which operate via metaphysics by majority. Its a big broad happy bell curve and most forms of paganism are actually about as bad as you seem to think. But thats a sample of the near middle or but end of the bell curve. Then theres
the far end of the bell curve on the other side. There are even "atheist" pagans. Paganism like christianity is a big huge umbrella under which there are thousands of different things camped out. You can't fiarly paint them all as being so bad just like you can't fairly say all forms of christianity are as corrupted by paganism as catholicism is.
But you'd be looking for the "High magick" sorts, the "Eclectic" sorts, and the depth reconstructionist sorts as well as some of the sorts
which actually survived.
If you unbottle your presumption its true of many forms of paganism and transhumanism certainly tries to be transcendent and fails because of its assorted forms of dogma 2. So comparatively, there are some pretty transcendent versions of paganism out there. Just like i suppose theres different kinds of transhumanism- several of which i happen to deplore because they rotted the original ideas about singularities into such generalized hoookum that nobody knows what an actual technological singularity is any more other than as a reified metaphor.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 10, 2008 - 6:32 AM
Things Prom said:
“You seem to be missing the more possible potential crossovers. “
“I can imagine easily that frankly real shamans will succeed at some of this stuff where atheistic scientists can't because they are capable
of dealing with more abstraction”
“I think you owe the forum now like 3 or 5 new threads for just about killing this one.”
“Which primary axioms of neo paganism and transhumanism are you trying to cross breed, anyhow??????????????????????? “
1.The Key -word here is 'possible'. Possible YES, Idealogicaly NO. if I take only the compatible parts from one kind of engine and it turns out it's only say half the parts (and only the most rudimentary at that) and then I use them to try and advance the functionality of a wagon, then can it be said I crossed the two? Hell no. what I did was only select compatible parts, I took those and I then used them for something that they weren't intended to be used for...as a result they will never work right there. This is called “cross-discipline-academia” and it's actually a sport not a real academic pursuit. Now that doesn't mean interesting discoveries can not come out of it, but then interesting discoveries can come out of anything.
2.How would they do this with Zero actual scientific training? I feel like I am having a debate at a trek convention over this subject.
3.I didn't kill this thread, the topic killed it's self, I just pointed the fact out. It's as if someone said “Hey what about flying underwater?” and then I said “that's called swimming, and it's something else, not flying”. If after that the Topic dies...is that my fault?
4.I would like to know that also. -
-
Re: Transhumanist perspective on Neo-Paganism
Wed, September 10, 2008 - 5:33 PM1.The Key -word here is 'possible'. Possible YES, Idealogicaly NO. if I take only the compatible parts from one kind of engine and it turns out it's only say half the parts (and only the most rudimentary at that) and then I use them to try and advance the functionality of a wagon, then can it be said I crossed the two? Hell no. what I did was only select compatible parts, I took those and I then used them for something that they weren't intended to be used for...as a result they will never work right there. This is called “cross-discipline-academia” and it's actually a sport not a real academic pursuit. Now that doesn't mean interesting discoveries can not come out of it, but then interesting discoveries can come out of anything.
---------
Your metaphor is lousy, tho i do see your point. However, in this case, the prime difference is that these "parts" are axioms,
and it turns out that logically, any given axiom stands on its own in any case. You are treating this as systemic and it has an aspect that is,
but on the other hand, each of those parts has its own identity and can function separately from the others.
I think it would be much more interesting to list the core axioms and then the other axioms and try to mix them.
My frustration with the drivel he has so far been able to provide is that theres no content, just wishy washy third rate ideas for an eclectic
process.
IF he would have actually ANSWERED my question and generated a list of core axioms, then we would be somewhere.
Otherwise, you are completely right; this is a crazed an entirely silly exploration. Flying under water is at least understandable as swimming.
------------------
2.How would they do this with Zero actual scientific training? I feel like I am having a debate at a trek convention over this subject.
------------
Damn good question i don't have any answer for. Since i have droves of science, its kind of like standing alone in the universe and waiting for somebody to say something thats not moronic.
Which is WHY the REAL question STILL is,
"What specific axioms are you trying to crossbreed?"
Unless he can generate a list, and a good one, off the top of his head, then hes wasting his and everybody elses time.
On the other hand, thats all that muggles do anyways- Jeff for instance is busy arguing with fringe lunatics and can't even be bothered to
come visit my site because hes so "Busy."
I don't know why you have to project so much so hard. I'm one part that nerdy pagan you seem to loathe, but sheesh,.... theres a whole lot more going on over here than what you'd find at any trek convention.
-----------------
3.I didn't kill this thread, the topic killed it's self, I just pointed the fact out. It's as if someone said “Hey what about flying underwater?” and then I said “that's called swimming, and it's something else, not flying”. If after that the Topic dies...is that my fault?
-------------
Dude. Dude. Dude.
Thats all i can say. Anybody else?
------------
4.I would like to know that also.
---------
I got lost. What also?
i assume
“Which primary axioms of neo paganism and transhumanism are you trying to cross breed, anyhow???????????????????????
since its the only fully rational thing i think anybodies said on this thread.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-