[MD] Transhumanism

[Mary]

Matt,

Your girlfriend is resentful because God didn't save her brother.  No wonder
she hates the religious.  They have nothing to offer.  If fact they
betrayed.

Really liked your observation about the articulate vs. the inarticulate.
You know, though, the battle has nothing to do with articularity.  It is
really a battle between the thought-out and the not-thought-out.  I hope you
win.

Mary

- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:20 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Transhumanism
> 
> 
> Hey Krimel,
> 
> Krimel said:
> To use your (Rorty's?) conversation and vocabulary
> metaphor surely there are often reasons to hold separate
> caucuses for purposes of precision within the various
> branches of knowledge but this does not mean there aren't
> good reasons to maintain and improve vocabularies that
> promote cross talk. When we find the kind of crosstalk that
> can provide connections from roots to stems that is what I
> would call metaphysics.
> 
> Matt:
> This, I take it, is the largest point in the area--the one that
> rains down on the other smaller, particular things--and it is
> one we agree on.  (The caucus metaphor is great.)  And I
> think agreeing on it pretty much washes away anything else
> in this particular area (like the question of "continuous or
> discontinuous?" which I take to be a debate not worth
> having once we agree on the larger point: it just becomes
> one of emphasis, because in another context I could have
> just as easily taken the "continuous" stance).
> 
> Krimel said:
> We don't talk often because I think our interests are so
> divergent. I am often disappointed with the venom in my
> own writing style but seem unable to detach from it. It
> doesn't help when people who don't seem to me possessed
> of either depth or breadth make dogmatic assertions or hold
> ignorance up as a virtue. I welcome thoughtful criticism but
> having said that I have to admit to having my own defensive
> streak that is miles wide.
> 
> Matt:
> I keep trying to use "divergent interests" as an explanation
> for a lot of conflict in the MD, particularly when it's
> generated by me, but people don't generally like that
> answer for some reason (so that I've sensed).
> 
> And I think everyone get's defensive sometimes.  God
> knows I do.  What is optimal is a low pressure environment
> so when one piston gets overheated, the other pistons
> don't, too.  We don't really have that here.
> 
> Krimel said:
> I recently tried to engage some of my high school
> classmates in a political discussion. After a bit of heat at
> the onset I tried to step back and direct the conversation
> to the differences between not what but how liberals think.
> You know compare worldviews....
> 
> Matt:
> Geez-ez, where'd you grow up?  Actually, come to think
> of it, I've been in a bubble most of my adult life.  I can't
> imagine what people from my high school think now...  Did
> you find it easier to talk about worldview than details?  I
> don't talk about politics enough with outsiders to have
> developed enough experiential evidence, but there's a big
> difference between the two, and I haven't a sense of
> which is more important to talk about.  Because I think
> you have to make a distinction in practice: in the
> short-term, details--the what--are more important, but in
> the long-term, worldview--the how.  Which is more
> important to talk about in the fleeting conversations we
> have in life, and which is easiest?
> 
> You mentioned all the nutty stuff your classmates thought,
> and it reminded me of every time I drive home with my
> girlfriend from San Diego (a long drive in a nameless
> direction, though I'll give you a hint: not west).  We always
> leave San Diego talking about religion, because she's what
> we call a "militant atheist," recovering from an oppressive
> religious upbringing which she made up in her head (don't
> ask me why), and her best friend in San Diego has recently
> come out of the closest as an evangelical Christian (nicest
> girl).  So far I've found myself in the weird position of being
> the moderator, nudging my girlfriend when she starts to
> say things that she half the time doesn't even realize are
> rude to believers.
> 
> Such a reflective beginning usually ends (after 7 hours)
> with her saying moderately insane things, like "Why don't
> we just bust in on the Mormon compounds and take these
> child abusers down?"  "What, and just throw the Bill of
> Rights out the window?"  "Well, just this one time...we
> know they're doin' it..."  So for the last hour I do my best
> to justify liberalism, a human rights culture, and the rule of
> law--which she damn well already believes in--before
> finally going, "Egh--you're just being contrary aren't you?
> You're just sounding crazy to see what I'll say."  "Yeah,
> probably."
> 
> You go through life talking to everybody you meet
> differently.  I don't believe in God, think a lot of
> Christianity hocus-pocus death-denial, but why on earth
> would I want to get into a theological discussion with a
> sweet, kind person who just wants to help the starving
> children in Africa and whose 29-year-old brother was
> recently crushed to death underneath a semi-trailor?  And
> being there and cognizant and _able_, why shouldn't I run
> screen for beliefs I don't believe in when the objective is
> the minimization of cruelty--my girlfriend's to her best
> friend?
> 
> The cruelty of the articulate over the inarticulate is
> something intellectuals don't often consider, I think.  When
> the inarticulate battle amongst themselves, I think they
> sometimes cause fires they aren't aware of.  But the
> articulate should know better.  And what's more, the
> inarticulate know when they're being bullied.  I think the
> American trend that Richard Hofstadter called
> "anti-intellectualism" is the revolt of the inarticulate against
> the articulate.  And there not exactly wrong on the
> personal level.  In the short-run, the articulate need to do
> better at talking to the inarticulate.  The onus is on us,
> and we are horrible at it much of the time.  It is only in the
> long-run where we are unarguably right: we need to make
> everyone articulate.
> 
> Matt
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
> Hotmail.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=P
> ID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html