Arges
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2006.11.21 17:39:00 -
[1]
I will say right now that I have very little interest in the debate that has been going on here, if there is even a debate to speak of. The only reason I have followed this discussion is in hope of getting a better underestanding of your belief system, Mrs Constantine. On this matter I must say that, so far, I have sided with Mr. Bresil. Although his eloquence may have nade him sound a little pompous, I think the point he adressed and questioned merits some development on your part.
I have found your first hint at Fractionnist philosophy to be most intriguing but it let me on my apetite. You seemed to prone absolute relativism by saying that both statements were right. Now... what was it exactly... ah yes, here we are:
 Quote:
Originally by: BranBresil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it should be obvious to you of course that they cannot both be true, so which, pray tell, is the one by which I might consider you to be immortal? I simply wish to fully comprehend this delightful little notion of post-humanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you can comprehend that they are indeed "both true" and that the very notion of objective "truth" is meaningless in this matter you are doomed to ignorance.
So, an objective point of view is meaningless and you are immortal since the sequential continuity of the "Jasmine Constantine" personna is unbroken through the upkeep of a clone.
The whole sequential continuity thing, I can understand. I have considered the matter thoroughly after having being subjected to my first clone activation and have decided since then to leave the matter of soul and indentity to people with more interest and understanding in these philosophical puzzles. I am who I am and that will suffice for me.
I am still wondering what you mean when you say the objective truth is irrelevent. If this is truely the case, the only truth comes from, as I said earlier, absolute relativism and can only be based on personnal experiences and the perceptions of each and every individual.
Is it so?
Complete freedom of thought and belief is a most commendable ideal but it's great flaw is that it validates any point of view as being equaly true to any other. This would mean that to be a true post-humanist, as I understand it, you would have to accept and understand each and every point of view as being true and valid from the perspective of the beholder and could in no way contest it, even though it might not fall within the parameters set by your own personnal beliefs and experiences. In the end, relativism is the death of any debate. Structure may lead to stagnation and entropy but chaos and absolute freedom only leads... well it leads nowhere and everywhere all at once since it has no direction and all directions simultaneously. Is it better? I don't believe so.
This request I make with the least sarcastic of intents. Please, Mrs. Constantine, do enlighten me on the belief system of the Fractionnist philosophy. Although I have no intentions of joining your group, this little "terrorist" is eager to learn more, if only to broaden my intellectual horizons.
|