Over the summer I finally took the plunge, and decided to look into what appeared the darkness of 'transhumanism'. I had overcome my initial response (part religious programming, part pro team human) to be afraid, and choose ignorance over truth and knowing.
Now having move into camp pro-progress and development (what I am now describing as an end to the 20th centuries self-improvement/personal development, into the 21st centuries self-enhancement/personal evolution), I found myself talking about recreating the Garden of Eden here on earth. Or at least providing a north star to aim for.
This post has provided me with a necessary critique of the pitfalls in my thinking in terms of paradise and the slippery slope of perfection and stasis.
Thanks very much for your feedback, Tanzim. Stay tuned for several more essays on the theme. It will be a few days as I'm recovering from a sudden trip to England.
Lots of useful and interesting stuff here. Just one quick observation for now. Not all Gods (not all theisms) are Platonic. And not all theistic accounts of perfection are Platonic. For example, God could be perfect simply by the grace of attribution — perfection, from the perspective of the devotee, can be that which God is, even in dynamicism. And to say such perfection isn’t really perfection would be merely to privilege competing theologies. Sometimes the “perfect” lunch is less about conceivable capacity to imagine better and more about altogether different concerns — more esthetic rather than epistemic.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that not all conceptions of gods are Platonic. This is probably the case for Hinduism, depending on how it's understood. And from what I understand of the Church of Latter Day saints (and your version of it), probably not true of it either. I'm not sure what you mean by "the grace of attribution".
When my friend does something for me (like prepare a lunch) and I enjoy it, I may say, “Thanks! That was perfect.” I attribute perfection to it as an act of grace. I’m not particularly saying it measures up to an external standard. I’m saying, all things considered, I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way. And I wouldn’t go back and change it, even if I could. It was perfect. Some theologies incorporate analogous ideas into potential relationships between God and humanity, and even between humans.
I should note, this kind of perfection is perfectly compatible with change and aspiration going forward, even endlessly so. But it’s a way of looking back on at least aspects of that which we cannot change directly, and changing our present posture toward it.
Over the summer I finally took the plunge, and decided to look into what appeared the darkness of 'transhumanism'. I had overcome my initial response (part religious programming, part pro team human) to be afraid, and choose ignorance over truth and knowing.
Now having move into camp pro-progress and development (what I am now describing as an end to the 20th centuries self-improvement/personal development, into the 21st centuries self-enhancement/personal evolution), I found myself talking about recreating the Garden of Eden here on earth. Or at least providing a north star to aim for.
This post has provided me with a necessary critique of the pitfalls in my thinking in terms of paradise and the slippery slope of perfection and stasis.
Thanks very much for your feedback, Tanzim. Stay tuned for several more essays on the theme. It will be a few days as I'm recovering from a sudden trip to England.
Lots of useful and interesting stuff here. Just one quick observation for now. Not all Gods (not all theisms) are Platonic. And not all theistic accounts of perfection are Platonic. For example, God could be perfect simply by the grace of attribution — perfection, from the perspective of the devotee, can be that which God is, even in dynamicism. And to say such perfection isn’t really perfection would be merely to privilege competing theologies. Sometimes the “perfect” lunch is less about conceivable capacity to imagine better and more about altogether different concerns — more esthetic rather than epistemic.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that not all conceptions of gods are Platonic. This is probably the case for Hinduism, depending on how it's understood. And from what I understand of the Church of Latter Day saints (and your version of it), probably not true of it either. I'm not sure what you mean by "the grace of attribution".
When my friend does something for me (like prepare a lunch) and I enjoy it, I may say, “Thanks! That was perfect.” I attribute perfection to it as an act of grace. I’m not particularly saying it measures up to an external standard. I’m saying, all things considered, I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way. And I wouldn’t go back and change it, even if I could. It was perfect. Some theologies incorporate analogous ideas into potential relationships between God and humanity, and even between humans.
Got it, thanks.
I should note, this kind of perfection is perfectly compatible with change and aspiration going forward, even endlessly so. But it’s a way of looking back on at least aspects of that which we cannot change directly, and changing our present posture toward it.
Thank you for making this cogent and informative post.