> There are two paths that CoV can
>take. If we are not open to Theists, we can market the CoV toward a
>Atheist/Agnostic audience, and hope to convert a substantial number there,
>and then change tactics and move into the theist realm. Alternatively, we
>can attempt to ignore religion as much as possible. Tell converts and
>disciples that they are free to make there own decisions about religion;
>that CoV does not reject any religious belief or require any religious
>beliefs (this is kind of similar to both the masons and Scientology,
except
>I think Mason's require a belief in a supreme being). We could simply
>teach critical thinking and the meta-memes, and when people learn enough
>about these, many will voluntarily become atheists/agnostics. I
personally
>think the church has a better chance to succeed with the second approach.
I plan to go public with the Virus, by doing a public show/seminar. My
target right now is a combination of university people and "new-agers".
My tentative plan is to use the name, "Pancritical Rationalism" for my
subject, since that's how I see it, but I'm thinking that it sounds too
complicated and not as flashy, as say, "Extropianism".
The show/seminar would be part talk/performance, but part
discussion/debate.
The talk would consist of the following topics:
1. How the exchange of ideas that takes place over the internet, differs
from elsewhere. (ie. which ideas survive under conditions where force can't
be used).
2. How the concept of "unity" through critical argument differs from other
peace movements, (ie. hippies, etc.)
3.A model of how belief systems affect society and how changes could take
place with the spread of the virus.
4. Memetics--the science of beliefs--how beliefs exist because they spread
well and how beliefs can get engineered to influence people.
5. How PCR is different from other idea systems, (ie justificationism vs.
falsificationism)
Then, a debate based on topics selected by the audience would be like an
"exposition" of dialectical discussion as one side takes one opinion, the
other takes another view, and then the opponents change sides to argue the
opposite position.
Any comments?
--David R.