Thanks for that Fritz. I've seen it many times, but anything George Carlin is worth seeing again as far as I'm concerned. I like that he prays to Joe Pesci. errr, rather that he did. Still getting used to the idea that he's dead.
[Mo]PS - to some extent I may be doing something similar with Carlton Pearson
[Fritz]I had the same thought, agreed
Quote:
[Mo]When we do it right, we like to call those surviving myths "History". In any case, to not imbue the topic with any biases, I like to simply call them all stories. History, myths, fairy tales, the record, minutes from the meeting, my resume, what have you. Some are more true than others, some more reasonable than others, but they all have the structure of a narrative so they are stories - we can subdivide from there.
[Fritz]A much better take then my rambling, agreed.
So how can we get this (or should we) "History" out of the Zeitgeist of CoV. There is a lot of substance, documented 'Myths' and emotion oozing out of the narratives at CoV. My take on your (Mo) opening and the Carlton Pearson piece was, is the on going narrative from: like minded, decenters, malcontents, just not nice contributors and genuine folk, quantifiable in any systematic way that would be useful in discriminating Virians and their Memes?
[Fritz]Saw this on Dish Network UWTV this afternoon. It was a repeat of a lecture prior to the US election and the Youtube has a followup piece. I thought it was very interesting and got me thinking on if the analysis was valid ?
You can download the lecture from the site below.
Source: UWTV lecture Author: David Domke Date: 10/09/2008
Religious Politics in America: Why the 2008 Presidential Election May Change Everything for Everyone
David Domke, professor of communications at the University of Washington, explains how the union of government and religion tends to degrade the integrity of both. This lecture is the first of four fall Luce Public Lectures presented by the Jackson School of International Studies.
Luce Public Lectures in Global Religion and Human Security Religious Politics in America: Why the 2008 Presidential Election May Change Everything for Everyone David Domke, professor of communications at the University of Washington, explains how the union of government and religion tends to degrade the integrity of both.
Interesting Fritz, thanks. My first "political" involvement was not in the Democratic party, but as a fundraiser for the ACLU. Just to review for those who haven't yet watched, this is a very good conceptual history and current report of religion state relations in the United States. Domke clearly makes the case that using religion as political tool/weapon isn't just a Republican strategy and that Democrats have started to surpass the GOP in their effective use of it. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out with Obama. I'm already very concerned that he wants to keep GWB's Faith Based Initiatives which policywise is a direct violation of First Ammendment precedent. On the other hand his mother was an atheist, and I've noticed how Obama's rhetoric is often inclusive of "people of no faith". Few successful politicians in the US have gotten away with that, so I find this much refreshing.
As for Radiance and governmental secularism, I think Domke's argument that government/state integration is damaging to both institutions carries an implicit assumption that religion is a good thing, or has good things going for it and that government involvement denigrates it. Its a good assumption to be making for the sake of argument in a country that is overwhelmingly religious. But it seems clear for the purpose of our personal ethics that we need other arguments about secularism. First off, on some level we need to recognize that not everyone pursuing Radiance will have the luxury of living in a secular (if otherwise religious/ideological) nation. Therefore it seems reasonable that different strategies of dealing with religion would arise in different national environments. Therefore great minds might not always think alike on this issue.
I noticed another thread started in the Free for all section by a newbie that was begining to get into some relevant issues for this thread started by me in Church Doctrine, so I may cross post similar material there as well. A rather blunt question Basically it comes down to how Radiance generally, and the CoV as a specific instance thereof, deal with religious memes? And religion in general? Are we competitors? Can we coexist? Ever? Some early thoughts in the project were raised, and while not necessarily completely resolved It has been the recurring variations on a theme begining especially with the GREAT FAITH WARS. I think by finally resolving on dogmatism as the true sin instead of faith, we did in fact head down a distinct path, that continues to define the variations to this day. Ironically many of the "victors", those championing dogma as a sin rather than faith as a sin began to move on, lose interest, or simply disappeared for various unknown, and possibly unrelated reasons, and it seems that somewhat more of the "vanquished" hung around, due to either obsession or by simply having too much spare time to talk about such things. And yet the fact that to this day we have stuck to our dogma about dogma (Mo snickers at his own joke), indicates to me some real memetic potential for this group.
Anyway, I'll interject a youtube video on this topic. Basically FakeSagan, a 4k plus subscriber atheist youtube personality answers a similar Dawkins-type musing about whether the world would just be better without any religion. Just like John Lennon, imagine it if you can - in a song preferably.
If you skip to 5:25 in the video, you will bypass a lot of unrelated personal stuff and get to the question, which is more or less as I described, and then at 6:25 Fake Sagan begins his answer, which I in large part agree with.
If you browse the text comments you will see mine there as well, which Fake Sagan seemed to appreciate as well. (slightly edited for BBS format).
MoEnzyme (3 weeks ago) I'd like to remind people that religion has often served as a patron of science. Early astronomy was almost entirely church funded. Sure people like to point out how the church forced Galileo to recant, but often they forget that his work was possible in the first place due to church patronage. It's not always like the creationists fighting evolution. Ever since John Paul II, the Catholic church has accepted evolution in the sense of 1) a billions of year old universe, and 2) common decent of all species. I think the current pope has already reaffirmed this much, indeed I'm sure Ratzinger counseled JP II on the original position. So currently the Catholic Church is doing better than most other religions folk on this particular scientific issue. Of course don't get me started on birth control, abortion, or pedophilia.
Supernaturalisms are simply a side effect of our capacity to think abstractly. And of course without this capacity, science, and philosophy itself would be impossible. Once you can imagine possible things, you can just as easily imagine impossible things. Indeed they make for interesting and memorable storytelling. However one may object, competing against good stories is difficult enough. Eradicating them is probably impossible without eradicating the storytellers. Suicide anyone?
In the form of a question
« Reply #21 on: 2009-01-02 12:49:00 »
Perhaps if we set a pattern of communication, That is that form a question first, the answer to which incorporates the ethical concepts of Radiance. Perhaps we form the question, or perhaps we encourage our conversation partner to form the question. Or for simple challenge sake, we could take any random question, but it probably helps if it actually relates to a real concern, otherwise we are simply navel gazing as fun as that may be.
For transhumanists like the Church of Virus - The question is about change: The response is about change in Radiant terms. Or perhaps it could be a question about growth, a sort of change, or of crisis, death etc. A robust ethical system should apply in all concievable eventualities.
... finally established our central ethical system of Virtues (Reason, Empathy, and Vision) and Sins (Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism). ... the Virtues and Sins provide a more immediate state-of-mind way of identifying the better paths, and the best possibilities for an enduring transhumanist narrative.
...That's why I'd like to offer them up as a viable memeplex in and of themselves.
... In a nutshell this is how I view Radiance. A non-religious spiritual system of ethics outlined by the three virtues - Reason, Empathy, and Vision - and the three sins - Hypocrisy, Apathy, and Dogmatism, as established by the "Great Faith Wars" in the Church of Virus.
I feel a bit hopeless about where to begin with reactions.
(1) I would suggest avoiding the word "meme" in any combination as much as possible. Though it is an interesting notion I would say: "When you drive in a nail you won't have to tell you use a hammer".
(2) "Radiance" is not in the lexicon. So I am still a bit unsure because of "this is how I view Radiance". I take "a nonreligious spiritual system... " is meant to be the definition ?
(3) "Virus was created to compete with the traditional (irrational) religions" & "providing a conceptual framework for leading a truly meaningful life". These two goals are not entirely overlapping. The second goal (Radiance?) is primarily of interest to those who have already lost religion. However to really compete with religion a lot more is needed then this framework. Having such a framework only is a starting point.
(4) This thread (and I am afraid many others on this board) is an example of how not to get a discussion that is to the point. The larger problem is that many contributions take too big liberties in putting their own idea's in front in stead of reacting on what was said in the first place. I have problems with posting video fragments and to a minor extent other illustrations too. Thirdparty citations of more then one or two paragraph's a time without comment in between should be "not done". Replies seriously exceeding the length of the original should be *very* to the point.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
[Secondspeaker]I feel a bit hopeless about where to begin with reactions. <snip>
Whether intentional or not; there was a tone that took me back to lectures from my Lutheran Pastor while enduring 'Confirmation' training that precluded my distance.
There was no intention, apart from the fact that I would have liked to expand on a lot of things and probably write something in the wiki (.2 credit short for that)
When I looked two month ago I noticed that all the energy was now spent on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I was taken aback by that I can tell you. Not that it shouldn't be discussed but it sure takes the swing out of things if you do that here in the way it was done.
Somehow this seems appropriate: "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish". Don't ask me why.
For goodness' sake will a few more people give poor SecondSpeaker a boost. I gave him a 9 to help him set to work in the wiki - which is what he said he wanted to do. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
[Hermit]For goodness' sake will a few more people give poor SecondSpeaker a boost. I gave him a 9 to help him set to work in the wiki - which is what he said he wanted to do. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
[Fritz]Never let it be said someones presentation will stand in the way of free speak .... rated 9 as suggested and looking forward to the wiki work.
NOTE: This intent was not obvious to moi ... but then .....
Author
Logged
