The good Professor wrote:
> NO! Never! I think you're missing part of the point. The process
> itself needs to involve people in the inner workings of the church.
> Remember, these are OUR saints, WE chose them to represent US and
> what WE think is noble, good, true, etc. They don't get to be
saints
> on their own merit alone. Someone needs to advocate for them; offer
> them up for nomination and present their arguments to the Council
(or
> whatever).
[snip] followed by:
> As do I . As self-replicating structures go, a form of distinct
> hierarchy is an absolute must. What else does the lowly initiate
> have to strive for, if not a velvet seat within the majestic Inner
> Circle?
...The first part of this excerpt has my wholehearted support. To the second part I am unalterably opposed. In a complex system which selfreplicates no part is of greater importance than any other, all are essential to the shape of the whole.
A Virian council of dedicated participants convening to present a potential saint to the collective for potential saints to the collective would be something I would support.
The formation of an elite to pass judgement on submissions from the uninitiated based on conformity with an established orthodoxy would be something I would oppose.
...I'd like to suggest that any group of three of more people who want to dedicate ttime to advocating the elevation to sainthood of an individual have the right to do so. The first part of my excerpt of Prof. Tim's post would then give rise to a process of discourse.
...the 'lowly initiate' may then strive to have the Virian architecture reflect the influence of their memes.
...we contend that we are reasoning beings, surely consensus is not beyond our grasp.
-psypher