From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 27 2002 - 19:25:31 MST
[nng 1*]
[Hermit 1] The Church of Virus has no dogma. Indeed, we classify dogma as a
sin. Please visit [url]http://virus.lucifer.com[/url] for more.
[nng 2] I noticed.
[Hermit 1] Instead, we consider it not only beneficial but also necessary
that each person come to his or her own (always tentative and falsifiable)
conclusions in all matters.
[nng 2] I've been a Unitarian Universalist for a while. When people ask us
"why on earth are you organized together if you don't have any creed?" I
reply: "If two people encounter each other and they both think they might be
trying to climb the same mountain, in only makes sense that they should
share what they've encountered to help each other out."
[Hermit 2] Reasonable answer.
[nng 2] Yes, everyone should come to their own conclusions - but offering to
share and "help" with the construction of such conclusions is, indeed, a
quite potentially mutually beneficial process.
[Hermit 2] We agree.
[Hermit 1] Unfortunately, to many of us, modern life does not appear to be
doing a very good job of teaching people how to reach conclusions. To that
end we engage in a process of dialog, which is intended to further each
members ability to reach such conclusions. While we recognize that logic and
reason cannot open all doors, they offer the only certain way of opening
some doors. So we respect these tools and seek deliberately to maximize our
capability to use them, while also recognizing the emergent nature of our
Universe and the fact that it is complex.
[nng 2] One of my majors during my undergraduate was mathematics. From the
basic Euclidean geometry axioms, I can sit down and have a fun time proving
the Pythagorean theorem and from there a multitude of trigonometric
identities. Likewise, with a little bit of number theory, proving calculus
is quite fun too.
[Hermit 2] Did logic and predicate or Lambda calulus come into your
education?
[nng 2] But I stopped and didn't go on to do graduate work in mathematics,
but instead in another subject. Why? Because research - the advancement of
knowledge - requires building upon what others have done - and the vast
number of thousands of years that mathematics has been around made it such
that to find out all that others had done in a particular area, and then try
to develop on it, wasn't something I especially enjoyed - because I couldn't
become so familiar with what was underlying it, and reach the level of being
able to prove everything along the way on my own.
[Hermit 2] I can understand that. But no matter the field we all stand to
benefit by standing on the shoulders of others - or our heads will surly be
trodden into the ground by our successors <grin> May I ask what subject?
(There is no obligation to reply and you may choose to answer on or
off-list).
[nng 2] To advance, we must build upon what went before. If we don't share
our memes regarding the conclusions we've reached about whatever
(specifically regarding coping and self-reliance, amongst others), then we
prevent the possibility of those memes evolving. So I say this (as I
understand from the [url]http://www.churchofvirus.com/about.html about
page[/url]) should be a forum for sharing such memes and allowing them to
evolve and grow.
[Hermit 2] Say rather of refining them, and learning what works and what
doesn't. Bear in mind, that in joining our community, each member tacitly
(and explicitly), consented to expose themselves to the memeplexii, which
tend to circulate here. Other than that I agree with you.
[Hermit 1] I find the following thought modii useful. Life is neither good
nor bad, it is a process of determining and refining our ability to enter
relationships with others, offering many opportunities to experience rewards
along the way. Evolution has provided us with a brain which has the ability
to enjoy abstract thought and the company of others. The social nature of
people also suggests that we maximize our pleasure by maximizing our
interactions and contact with others. How we realize these potentials is
quite probably the greatest single separator between men, and determinator
of our satisfaction with our lives and ourselves.
[nng 2] Should I assume then, that the comments that you are offering above
are suggestions and not "assertions"?
[Hermit 2] They are indeed "suggestions" for consideration, but represent
some of what I (and others here, but not necessarily all Virians) hold to be
well established.
[Hermit 1] In other words, we create our own opportunities for joy, sorrow
and indifference in the way that we live, in the things that we do and in
the attitudes that we hold. Our nature is such that even if we stand to one
side, that we will in any case empathize with the hurt of others (that is a
genetic legacy and one I do not regret). Yet standing to one side, we cannot
experience their joys. Thus I find that indifference offers the fewest
rewards, and that while sorrow is hardly possible unless we interact with
other men, that this also precludes the full joy of living.
[nng 2] Your name (Hermit) seems hardly befitting the lifestyle you are
encouraging.
[Hermit 2] An underlying assumption on your part, I think. Not a valid one,
albeit not unusual.
[Hermit 2] The name was a deliberate choice. It has carried over into real
life as well - even though I'm hardly a recluse. Rather the reverse. So how
did I end up with a name like this? I have been involved with IRC since it
first existed (late 80s early 90s) and, fortunately or unfortunately, due to
an extended absence from the net in the mid 90s, I lost my original IRC nick
of "Thanatos" (which I had used since the bulletin board days of the 1970's
on many networks), and was looking for a new one. Being a collector of Tarot
cards (as an artform (please do not ascribe any other meaning to this
collection, as I do not)), I chose a nick that carries a Tarot meaning with
which I could identify and attempt to live up to (symbols are also
important). That of a thinker and a teacher.
[Hermit 2] So what is the Tarot Hermit? [quote]From the desert of Strength,
Tarot takes us next to a mountain, the mountain retreat of The Hermit. The
Tarot Hermit is a not a hermit in the sense that most of us assume. He is no
mystic who lives alone in a cave, fasting, meditating far away from the
world. In Tarot, the Hermit is a teacher and guide; he does go into
seclusion, but he is not as much apart from people as the archetypal hermit
who is all but totally divorced from humanity. The stereotypical hermit
could almost care less about humanity. If humanity searches him out, then
fine, but otherwise, leave him alone. The Tarot Hermit, is instead a mystic
who withdraws to study and then rejoins the world to help, teach, lead and
minister to others. He projects his high ideals into works that will
benefit everyone. It is only through such service that a Tarot Hermit can
fully realize himself. He cannot work successfully for self-alone, but must
act for the benefit of humanity. The Hermit card is also considered the
healer in Tarot, particularly the healer of inner ills.[/quote] [Hermit: The
Tarot Hermit]
[Hermit 2] Then too, Crowley's Liber AL vel Legis probably came to mind
[quote]For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and
the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law[/quote]
and even [quote]II,24: Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also
of my friends who be hermits. Now think not to find them in the forest or on
the mountain; but in beds of purple, caressed by magnificent beasts of women
with large limbs, and fire and light in their eyes, and masses of flaming
hair about them; there shall ye find them. Ye shall see them at rule, at
victorious armies, at all the joy; and there shall be in them a joy a
million times greater than this. Beware lest any force another, King against
King! Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the
fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.[/quote].
[Hermit 2] Thus, we have a conglomeration of glorious contradictions,
hopefully forcing the viewer to form an opinion based on my words, rather
than their perception of my selected identity.
[Hermit 1] There are several prerequisites to interrelating successfully
with others. The ability to communicate effectively, the ability to think
rationally and act ethically, the characteristics of dependability and
predictability, an understanding of where we come from to determine a
context for words and actions, and above all, seeing that men tend to react
to one another depending on how they are treated, the anticipation that you
will find the company and pleasures of others to be pleasant and pleasing to
yourself. That way, you will sometimes be disappointed, but I would suggest,
not nearly so much as those that do not engage in hopeful dialog (who,
fortunately for themselves, seldom realize how much they are missing).
[nng 2] So this forum should be for the discussion of memes to facilitate
the development of those
abilities/characteristics/understandings/anticipations?
[Hermit 2] Certainly this is another aspect of how I (and others here) see
the CoV, although I'd suggest that perhaps I would not particularly
emphasize that aspect of our Church. Rather we learn to do this for
ourselves and to ourselves, not so much discussing memes as sharing them,
and correcting one another in a process of learning to exercise a measure of
[i]conscious[/i] control over our thoughts, feelings, and actions as a
result of the deliberate selection of a "better" class of memes. You should
perhaps understand, that as a famous Virian [KMO] once put it, we try to
"Feed the hungry" - in other words, we attempt to identify what is good, and
if we see things where the CoV might be helpful, we try to change the world,
first attempting to be sure that this is what the recipients desire. The
easiest place to be sure that this is what the recipient desires, is right
here. Our disclaimers are generally sufficient to put off those who do not
wish to attempt this process.
[Hermit 2] The emergent nature of the Universe described above implies that
multiple perspectives are greatly superior to one, and that self-enrichment
(and true joy) arises from grasping the fact that there is an entire,
colorful spectrum rather than a dreary landscape in black and white or even
shades of grey. So the CoV does not attempt to capture the world in a word,
rather we explore - and enjoy - the complexity of the world and our various
perspectives of it and experiencing the delight of teaching others how to
communicate these various perspectives effectively.
[nng 2] That last sentence makes this sound like it's some kind of speech
(interpersonal communication) class.
[Hermit 2] That together with reasoning, logic, analysis, the scientific
method, history, geography, language, concept propagation, didactics, debate
and a whole lot more all come into it. More perhaps, than some of your other
suggestions. How else could we know what memes we should be propagating, how
best to accomplish this, and how best to prepare ourselves for the task?
Certainly I see this aspect of the CoV as being much more significant than
the "memetics" side per se, as this has the potential to change the world -
by example - and all the people here except for those just feeling the
water, have agreed to be infected with these memes.
[Hermit 1] Sadly, life being good, we all die. It has been argued that our
purpose is to propagate our genes. I would argue that we can already see
that we will have to transcend that concept (unless we begin to direct our
own evolution in an attempt to remain equal to the neural networks that I
suspect may eventually replace us). I suggest that the logical approach is
to recognize that it is not our genes, which are so dreadfully important to
propagate, but our memes. In other words, what have we contributed to the
idea space that we leave behind us.
[nng 2] On this, I am willing to tentatively concede that that is the most
probable - but I also fully believe that there's probably a lot more going
on and that there might be other stuff to pass on as_well/instead.
[Hermit 2] Would you care to expand on your thoughts on this?
[Hermit 1] This seems to be a natural progression for a Virian, and I think
that Kalkor put it rather nicely in
[url=http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::W1YUWjMz-IXR_-dRp0-X0N1-JhduLUwfUQUI]"virus:
Coping and self-reliance (was RE: faith not moribund)", Kalkor, Wed Feb 27,
2002 03:05 pm[/url]
[nng 2]Yes, I concur that the definition of self-reliance, as provided
there, is well argued. But it seems about as useful to achieving
self-reliance as the peano postulates are to proving Fermat's last theorem -
there's a lot more to go before one can take those words and turn them into
reality and "cope" with that reality. Which leads me to the coping
aspect....
[Hermit 2] Actually once we (as humans) learn the basic tools, rubbing
shoulders with other Virians, and holding the basic tenets of the CoV as
goals, the how tends to fall into place by itself. I would argue, strongly,
that the process of learning the ability to use the tools needed to practice
self-efficacy teaches self-efficacy and with this comes a burning desire to
be more self-enabled, while having the discipline not to attempt to thrust
it at others, in a significant percentage of the population. We are seeing
this process being successfully implemented over a roster of people from a
very diffuse range of social, cultural, economic and intellectual
demographics.
[nng 2] Kalkor states that coping is best achieved via acceptance of those
two points:
[list]
1) The past cannot be changed
2) Doing only things that benefit me, immediately and in the long term, is
the surest way to cope with having done badly or been done wrong.
[/list]
[nng 2] I claim that (1) is a belief that could quite possibly be overturned
with the advent of time-travel, and so therefore is not acceptable to a
person with the virtue of "vision".
[Hermit 2] I would suggest that there is a difference between "vision" and
"fantasy". For a vast number of reasons and almost all apparently woven into
the fabric of the Universe, time travel (into the past) seems to be unlikely
if such time travel is to convey any information. If it cannot convey
information, then it cannot affect the past. Which would tend to affirm
Kalkor's assertion.
[nng 2] I also claim that (2) begs the question - it is too shrouded in
notions of "benefit", "badly", and "wrong" to be immediately obviously
applicable.
[Hermit 2] That is partly what we are all here for. To learn the “right” way
to communicate these concepts. I’m fairly sure that I understood, and
approved, of what Kalkor had to say. Perhaps because I know him better than
you - one of the advantages of a church - we learn to understand each other
over time.
[nng 2] A more thorough discussion of those terms is relevant before (2) can
have any meaning.
[Hermit 2] I think that using "ordinary" definitions permits one to gain an
excellent sense of what Kalkor meant. And as a working rule of thumb (how we
do most things) it seems that it is vastly superior to many other
philosophies. Not all of us have all of the words immediately to hand, but
(almost) everyone here works towards communicating his or her ideas
effectively. Kalkor seems to be doing an excellent job to me.
[Hermit 1] PS As a brief refresher, which may be helpful, the scientific
method cannot prove anything.
[nng 2] I concur.
[Hermit 1] It can of course be used to disprove anything amenable to the
scientific process - and asserts (stipulating that Hawking radiation is
information free) that there is nothing, which exists outside of a
singularity, which is not amenable to this process. As we cannot experience
a singularity at this stage of our existence, we can simplify this to assert
that the scientific method can be applied to everything that exists. That is
not to suggest that the scientific method is perfect, error free or in its
final form. It too is emergent and provisional (which simply means subject,
at least in principle, to refutation cf. Karl Popper and Popperian
falsifiability). This provides a glimpse of the three principle differences
between the scientific method and other ways of considering things. What it
addresses must be at least founded in observation (most scientists would
say, "must be founded in an observation"), or it is not possible, even in
theory to refute it. It is consensual and self-correcting. It progresses
most rapidly precisely when the most important things we assert through it
are overturned. These attributes are diametrically opposed to classical
religions, mysticism, belief and even politics.
[nng 2] Not so close. Consider works such as
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761910131/ref=cm_wl_topnav_books/ref=cm_mp_wli_/102-8403530-2359342?coliid=I2BGTPD5QQJBQO]"Transpersonal
Research Methods in the Social Sciences : Honoring Human Experience",
Rosemarie Anderson (Editor), William Braud (Editor)[/url]
[nng 2] This presents the synthesis of the "truths" from mysticism into a
scientific framework that is rigorous and amenable to repeated
experimentation.
[Hermit 2] From what you say, I understand that you are asserting that the
end result has withstood enquiry using the scientific method? If so, I have
no difficulty with how the original hypothesis was derived. So your "not so"
is perhaps misplaced. But the proof of the pudding is in the consensual
support of peers for the theory after due challenge, and as it is not one
with which I am familiar, would you care to describe it further? It is
unlikely that I will be reading the referenced work any time soon, if ever.
[Hermit 1] Personally, I would suggest that I have found nothing worthwhile
in life which cannot be addressed and enjoyed more from this perspective
-including literature, art, poetry, music, good food, wine and love. All of
these wonderful aspects of being alive are experienced (observed), and the
more familiar you are with them and the more you practice enjoying them, the
more you know of them, the more intensely you can> engage with them and the
greater the enjoyment becomes.
[nng 2] This is sounding like Neo-Epicureanism to me. I hope that's not all
I'm going to find here.
[Hermit 2] I very much doubt that that is "all" you are "going to find here"
(we embrace a vast range of personal philosophies), although I opine that
there is nothing wrong with neo-Epicureanism per se, at least as a component
of a more holistic philosophy. This was rather a pre-emptive strike on my
part to ensure that my focus on the rational view did not lead to a
misunderstanding of a different sort. There have been many visitors here who
did not grasp the essential concept that all of life, including rather
abstract concepts, is in principle, quite amenable to being dealt with on a
rational basis.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT