Anarcho-Transhumanism

I’ve always considered myself a bit of a non-violent anarchist.  I’m extremely cynical about the value of organizations, particularly in an era when it’s easy to self-organize around specific tasks. 

Most mature organizations seem to degenerate into self-preservation activities (including assimilation).  The two major organizations that I belong to–one for work and one for religion–certainly seem to fit this ossifying pattern.

At my work, I’ve been lucky.  I’ve had bosses that have let me pursue my dreams, and colleagues and friends who have helped me actualize them.  But I’m much more the exception than the rule.  The Federal agency I work for is stagnating under the weight of its own history and its growing bureaucracy. 

With my religion, I’ve decided to live on the fringes, and so far survived.  A friend once told me that he is a “cafeteria” Mormon, and that description fits me.

I live parttime in Uganda (east-central Africa).  The country is poor beyond what most middle-class Americans can image.  It is a small country with a big population.  And it’s my belief that the only thing that can lift Uganda out of its miasmal mist are social change coupled with a heavy dose of technology. 

Because of my strong belief in the value of science and technology, I discovered transhumanism.  And surprisingly “cafeteria” Mormonism and transhumanism are a good fit.  But where does my anarchical streak fit in?  Today, I found the a description of anarcho-transhumanism.  The definition is vague, but here goes:

Anarcho-Transhumanism is the recognition that social liberty is inherently bound up with material liberty, and that freedom is ultimately a matter of expanding our capacity and opportunities to engage with the world around us. It is the realization that our resistance against those social forces that would subjugate and limit us is but part of a spectrum of efforts to expand human agency—to facilitate our inquiry and creativity.

This means not just being free from the arbitrary limitations our bodies might impose, but free to shape the world around us and deepen the potential of our connections to one another through it.

It means the tools we use should be openly knowable and infinitely customizable; it means bodies that are not locked into processes in which we have no say. It knows that the hunger for choice behind birth control, regrown limbs and sexual reassignment is the same hunger that organizes workers and sets fire to prisons. It is struggle to live free… and do so for one more year, one more decade, one more century. It means not just transcending the strictures of gender, but of genetics and all previous human experience. It means fighting to be allowed the fullest actualization of who and what we want to be, whenever we want to be it.

It means challenging and altering the conditions that might otherwise govern us. It means when the tools exist to better our lives they should be used; that no one should starve when such scarcity can be eliminated. It means vigilantly engaging with nature rather than bullying or surrendering to it. It is the knowledge that victory for the working class will only truly arrive when every worker individually owns the means of production—capable of fabricating anything and everything for themselves. It is proactive engagement with the environmental conditions that force hierarchy and inescapable collectivism. It means freeing our society from the hierarchies of 2-Dimensional landscapes, to move our destructive infrastructures outside the biosphere and to eventually shake off sedentary civilization and take our place as hunter-gatherers between the stars.

It means cryptography—unbreakable channels of private communication added up into an unbreakable hive of ideas and knowledge. It also means the abolition of public privacy—the creation of a world where the actions we take with one another are sharable and verifiable in an instant. And ultimately it will be the freedom to surpass the limited bandwidth of language and connect more and more directly to one another—to merge minds and transcend individual subjectivities as desired.

Anarcho-Transhumanism is all of these things and any one of them.

I suppose I might consider myself a non-violent anarcho-transhumanist.  But the above definition is little squirrely for my taste.

But change needs to happen if Ugandans are to have a future.  There needs to be more equality in opportunities.  There needs to be progress on the social and environmental front, as well as on the science and technology front.

“The Responsibility of (Mormon) Intellectuals,” A Review

James Faulconer, the Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University, recently wrote the following on patheos.com:

Whereas an intellectual is duty-bound to criticize those in political power as needed and to use his or her learning to do so, intellectual members of the [LDS] Church don’t have that same responsibility. That doesn’t mean that the Church never makes a mistake or that it is beyond criticism. It means that if I believe that the Church is, on the whole, led by revelation, then I must be doubly skeptical of my opinions.

I’m not sure I know where to start:

• First, he doesn’t define the term “intellectual.”  So, I’m not sure what audience he is addressing;
• Second, I agree with him that intellectuals, whoever they are, should be humble; and
• Third, skepticism is a healthy human trait and should not be dismissed or downplayed, even as it relates to the LDS Church.

I’m not sure that I would qualify as an intellectual.  I do have too many graduate degrees, but I work more as a generalist than as a specialist.  I don’t work for a university, I work for the Federal government.  I’m not a scientist or a social scientist, I’m a planning engineer.  Most of my writing doesn’t have footnotes and I haven’t written a book.  But for the sake of argument, I will call myself an “intellectual.”

As such, Faulconer says that I need to be humble.  That is a wonderful idea.  My wife, my kids, my grandkids, my Mother, my colleagues, and my friends frequently tell me that I need to be more humble.  And I sincerely appreciate their suggestions.

Faulconer lists many ways that I can be humble in a LDS Church setting:

• Sit in the pews with my family and friends, and enjoy the church service,
• Serve faithfully when called to serve, not expecting special treatment,
• Clean the chapel, do my home teaching, set up chairs,
• etc.

Not once does he mention that I should help my neighbor, that I should assist the poor, or that I should help protect the Earth.  I would remind Faulconer that “To whom much is given, much is expected.”  But I do agree that I should “learn to love ordinary life.”

On the issue of what I should do with my opinions, Faulconer’s position is very troubling.  Members can have a positive impact on the LDS senior leadership.  It is my understanding that years ago, the GAs ask Mormons to fast and contribute money toward relief in Ethiopia.  The Church collected so much money, that they were forced to consider what their role should be in worldwide relief efforts.  And that helped bring about the birth of the modern LDS Humanitarian Services efforts.

While many members can claim that giving the Black’s the priesthood was done through revelation, pressure from the membership didn’t hurt.  And by the same token, we can always hope that pressure from the membership can bring about a change in the Church’s attitude towards gays.

I suspect that strong opinions from some quarters helped shorten the lives of “Mormon” books like Man, His Origin and Destiny and more recently Mormon Doctrine.  The former was just plain silly and the latter espoused some questionable information concern doctrine.

Our individual opinions do count, they are important, and they should not be hidden.  To imply that the membership should follow blindly, makes us look like a cult.  And we are not a cult.

Faulconer ends his essay on an interesting note.  He brags about his involvement with the Mormon Theology Seminars and Salt Press, and their projects that don’t ”bring about anything at all.”  Setting himself up as a wonderful example, doesn’t seem like humility to me.

Mitt Romney is no George Romney

The press and editorialists are continuing to pummel Mitt Romney.  Commenting on issues related to Romney’s federal taxes, Nobel-Prize-winning, liberal economist Paul Krugman writes:

. . . Although  disclosure of tax returns is standard practice for political candidates, Romney has never done so, and, at first, he tried to stonewall the issue even in a presidential race.  Then he said that he probably pays about 15 percent of his income in taxes and he hinted that he might release his 2011 return.

Even then, however, he will face pressure to release previous returns, too–like his father, who released 12 years of returns back when he made his presidential run.  (The elder Romney, by the way, paid 37 percent of his income in taxes.)

While Krugman’s principal complaint is against American tax policy which gives large tax breaks to the super rich, it is Romney who is going to continue to receive the verbal abuse.

Another column written by Lee Siegel in the NYTimes complains about Romney’s whiteness:

. . . there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and that is his race.  The simple impolitely stated fact is that Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent years.  Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density.  I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president.

While this attack on the surface seems like a low blow, there is just enough truth in it to make one ponder.

But perhaps the harshest attack of all comes from fellow Mormon (and Jeopardy superstar) Ken Jennings:

. . . it may comfort Romney’s skeptics to know that there will be little Mormon trimphalism in their man’s nomination or even election.  In my experience, Romney isn’t an icon of hope to his community the way John F. Kennedy was for Catholics or Obama for African-Americans.

But for me the comparison of Mitt to Jack is not nearly as painful as the comparison of Mitt to his father George.  According to Krugman, George paid 37 percent of his income to federal taxes, Mitt apparently has used every loop hole available to reduce his to 15 percent.  George was active in the civil rights movement, can Mitt say anything similar?  In fact, there is strong evidence that George was willing to stand up to LDS Church leaders on issues related to civil rights.  George helped rebuild an ailing American Motors, Mitt was a private equity executive at Bain Capital.  George, although a bit of an egotist, had charisma, Mitt has little.  I admired Romney the elder, but I have trouble admiring Romney the younger.

The Mormon Persecution Complex

According to a recently released Pew Forum poll, a whopping 46% of Mormon respondents said that Mormons face “a lot of discrimination” in modern America.  No surprise there, it is a favorite theme in LDS Church meetings at all levels.

Ken Jennings, “Jeopardy” superstar and Mormon, wrote the following in the NY Daily News (19 Jan 2012):

Even today, with Mormons more engaged in American public life than ever before, their sense of suspicion toward the outside world remains. When I attend my weekly church services, sermons and Sunday school lessons often come with anxious warnings about the dangers of “the World” — not the planet we all live on, but an evil place with a capital “W,” an unimaginably depraved Babylon that surrounds the righteous at all times. From 1995 to 2008, the LDS church was led by a sprightly old man named Gordon B. Hinkley, whose sermons were marked by an irrepressible joie de vivre. At the age of 84, he told a New York Times interviewer, “The world is good. Wonderful things are happening in this world. This is the greatest age in the history of the Earth.” But Hinckley’s sunny optimism never quite became his church’s.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that we need to stand firm against the evils of modern life, but this kind of gloomy siege mentality is counterproductive. Too often, the response is to disengage, like our pioneer forefathers. We stick to ourselves and overshelter our children. We develop thin skins, taking every late-night monologue joke about Romney’s teetotaling ways or “magic underwear” as a sign of rampant discrimination. (I take it this is what many Mormons mean when they tell pollsters they are half again as put-upon as blacks, a ridiculous notion.)

I must admit in my 66 years of being a Mormon (Jack), I’ve never felt persecuted or threatened.  I was raised in Illinois and Michigan, I served a mission in Belgium and France (just after the De Gaulle regime), I was in the service in North Carolina, I went to school in Logan UT, and I’m currently living in Orem UT.  I’ve traveled in over 40 countries spread over 5 continents.  I currently live part-time on the Navajo Nation and in the country of Uganda.  I have never felt persecuted, either by non-Mormons or active Mormons.  I’ve never felt that I’m surrounded by evil and that people are out to get me.

Let’s develop a positive attitude about the world and the future.  Even the usually stern President Boyd K. Packer was forced to admit that we are not living in the Last Days.

The Inequities with Tithing

According to Sam Brunson writing for Times and Seasons (18 Jan 2012):

ABC broke the news:  Mitt Romney has donated millions of dollars worth of stock to the Mormon church. SEC filings disclose that a Bain partner donated $1.9 million of Burger King stock to the Church; in addition, the Church has received stock of other Bain holdings, including Domino’s, DDi, Innophos, and the parent company of AMC Theaters.

But why? Why would Romney give the Church equity stakes in bad fast-food chains, second-rate pizza chains, and other such holdings?

So why did Mitt Romney do this?  Why does he contribute stock to the LDS Church?  He does it for tax reasons which are explained in the T&S article.  In essence, he gets the government to assume some (or most) of his tithing obligation. 

The “Taxguy” commenting on the above T&S post wonders about the inequity of it all.

I think there is a much bigger deal going on here as far as the Church is concerned.  Romney’s effective tithing rate may be as low as 1% after tax benefits.  A typical wealthy person with a Federal and State tax deduction may pay tithing at an effective tithing rate of 5%.  The widow and her mite with only standard tax deductions pays tithing at an effective tithing rate of 10%.

So, the person who has the least to pay, pays at the highest effective rate.  This is so unfair to the poor and needy.

I know this is how the tax code works, but is it how the Church should work – shouldn’t we require some balancing of this?  As an individual, do we really feel in compliance if we are getting 50% or 90% of our tithing right back?  What kind of sacrifice is that?

“Naismith” commenting on the same article brought up a slightly different issue on the same general subject:

One of the big plusses for well-to-do US Americans is that they get health insurance through their employer and generally do not pay tithing on the (usually larger) portion of premiums paid by the employer, since those dollars never actually came through your hands (but save significantly on health care costs throughout the year). I think the average employer premium for a family plan is about $12,000 per year.

Should we be paying taxes or tithing on those benefits?

So if you are poor or self-employed, you may have a higher tithing obligation than someone who is salaried with health benefits.  Again the poor come out on the short end of the stick.

Tithing serves two general purposes:  (1) it keeps the church functioning and (2) it is a sacrifice for the giver.  But what kind of a sacrifice is it if the government makes the majority of the contribution?

It looks like the law of tithing could use some fine tuning to make it more equitable for the poor and more of a real sacrifice for the wealthier givers.  It is bad enough that the 1 percent get unnecessary tax benefits, but to also get a break on tithing seems particularly onerous.

Are Mormons Henotheists?

In the OrthodoxWiki entry on “Theosis,” the author makes the following statement:  “The Mormons are clear promoters of henotheism, and the Church Fathers have absolutely no communality with their view.”

The entry in Wikipedia on “Henotheism,” in part, reads:  “Henotheism is the belief and worship of a single god with accepting the existence or possible existence of other dieties.”

A subset of Henotheism is Monolatrism:

” . . . which is also the worship of one god among many.  The primary difference between the two is that Henotheism is the worship of one god, not precluding the existence of others who may also be worthy of praise, while Monolatry is the worship of one god who alone is worthy of worship, though other gods are known to exist.”

The reasons why members of the LDS Church are referred to as Henotheists and/or Monolatrists are two fold:

• Mormons are non-Trinitarians, they believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities.
• Mormon belief in theosis, that man and God are the same species, and that man can achieve godhood.
  

  Joseph Smith Sees Two Distinct Images: The Father and the Son

So, I would agree that Mormons are Henotheists, but I would prefer to be categorized as Monolatrist.

Statue of Responsibility

One of the main subjects of this blog has been monumental, outdoor works of art.  So far, I’ve only written about existing works.  But this entry deals with a proposed work:  the Statue of Responsibility.

The Proposed "Statue of Responsibility"

 According to the project website:

The Statue of Liberty has served as a symbol of liberty, both in America and throughout the world.  Its counterpart, the Statue of Responsibility, will likewise serve as a symbol–a visible representation and call to responsibility–both in America and abroad.  These two principles–liberty and responsibility–when linked together, will help engender and secure freedom for the present generation , and for generations yet unborn, wherever a thirst for freedom exists.  Only by balancing Liberty with Responsibility can Feedom be sustained.

The gigantic statue is to be constructed on the West Coast (like a bookend to the Statue of Liberty with the American heartland in between), somewhere near San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Seattle.

Standing Side-by-Side

The Statue of Responsibility, design by Utah artist Gary Price, consists of two interlocking arms.  Contribute toward its construction if you feel so inclined.  Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the foundation behind the project has been intensely focused on trying to bring the project to fruition.

If you are interested in existing monumental works of art, click on “monumental” on the right.

Theosis: Mormonism vs Eastern Orthodoxy

From what I’ve been able to read on the Internet, theosis or “union with God” is an important belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.  However, the Orthodox definition of theosis differs from the Mormon concept.  For the Orthodox, theosis, while difficult to describe or define, is a sort of mystical post-mortal union with the light, aura, or illumination of God without the loss of individual identities.  It seems like the Orthodox theosis is more of an event than a process.

Eastern Orthodox Icon Depicting Theosis?

In Mormonism, theosis is literally the belief that humans can become gods through the process of eternal progression.  Theosis for Mormons is a process more than an event.  According to Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage in his book The Articles of Faith (p. 430):

We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement–a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, who glory it is their heritage to share.”

With the Mormon belief in eternal progression, both God and man are progressing for the eternities.  As one Mormon critic described it:  we are, “with respect to knowledge and power on a divine escalator.”  This belief is consistent with the teachings of Joseph Smith (late in his life), and particularly Brigham Young.

Members of the Eastern Orthodox Church are uncomfortable with the Mormon concept of theosis.  Ironically, in an effort to be historically grounded, Mormon scholars use many of the same patristic (early Christian) sources to defend their version of theosis as do the Orthodox.  Mormon scholar feel that the doctrine of the divination of man (man may become a literal god) is not the exclusive teaching of the modern-day LDS Church.  Rather, it can be found in early Christian history.  For example, St. Athanasius stated “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . .”  According to OrthodoxWiki: 

Some Mormons suggest that discussions of theosis by early Church Fathers show an early belief in the Mormon concept of deification, although they disagree with much of the other theology of the same Church fathers, most notably the doctrine of the Trinity.

Richard and Joan Ostling, in their book Mormon America, examined the issue and came to the following conclusion:

It seems clear that support for the Mormon doctrines of a corporeal and limited God, eternal progress, and deification cannot be found in Eastern Orthodoxy, the early church fathers, or the twentieth-century writings of C.S. Lewis (p. 313).

Since the Ostlings (non-Mormon journalists) received generally favorable reviews on their book from both Mormons and non-Mormons, they might be considered neutral parties in this discussion.

However, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev on the website Orthodox Christianity lists five characteristics of the Orthodox belief in theosis:

• Deification of the human nature is possible because of the Incarnation of God
• Human body takes full part in the process of deification and is deified along with the soul.
• The church sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, are among the most important means for deification.
• Deification is anticipated and begun here on earth, but is fully realized in the afterlife.
• Deification is closely connected with a personal mystical experience with the vision of the divine uncreated light.

I don’t think Mormons would disagree with any of these five points.  The only difference is in the end result.  Mormons appear to have a more expansive view of an individual’s potential in the eternities.

If one assumes that what was given at the time of Christ was essentially what the people at that time were able to culturally grasp, then maybe it doesn’t matter if there are deep historical roots to the Mormon belief in theosis.

Theosis: Mormons vs Evangelicals

According to Daniel Burke writing for the Religion News Service and published in the SLTrib (5 Jan 2012):

[Joseph] Smith preached fairly orthodox Christian theology at first, but “became increasingly radical, breaking more and more from standard Christianity with every year that he lived,” said Craig Blomberg, a professor at Denver Seminary who has been active in evangelical-Mormon dialogue.

A sermon Smith preached [the King Follett discourse] three months before his death in 1844 planted the seeds for Mormonism’s biggest break with traditional Christianity, according to scholars.  In it, Smith preached that God was once a flesh-and-blood man who had attained godhood. Likewise, Smith taught, humans could advance to God-like status in heaven.

“It has become important for traditional Christians to maintain an unbridgeable creature-Creator chasm,” said Robert Millet, emeritus dean of religious education at Mormon-owed Brigham Young University in Provo.

“For Latter-day Saints, God and man are the same species. God has substance — he is not just a force or power.  He is an exalted, glorified man, and one of the purposes of the gospel is to help us become what he is.”

The idea of humans becoming gods runs counter to mainstream Christianity, said Richard Mouw, president of the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.  Confusing the two has traditionally been considered blasphemous, he said.

However, the Mormon idea does approach the Eastern Orthodox Christian notion of “theosis,” or partaking in the divine energies of God, said Mouw, a 20-year veteran of Mormon-evangelical dialogue.

Transhumanism, Immortality, and Prolonging Human Lives

Stefan Lorenz Sorgner makes the following statements about Transhumanist and Immortality:

Transhumanists . . . aspire for a type of immortality, though, in most cases, this is not literal immortality but rather a long life or a prolonging of human lives. . . .  Transhumanists reject the idea of an eternal afterlife in a transcendent world and develop concepts of a prolonged life within this world. . . .  The transhumanist idea of a prolonged life does not necessarily seem to work as an answer to the question of the meaning of life.  It might work in this way, if it meant that one can actually achieve a type of immortality, but I doubt that this is what most transhumanists have in mind. . . .

I wonder whether transhumanists are committed to longevity as a necessary component of the good life, and whether it is valid for all human beings that a good life for posthumans must be a long one.  The Transhumanist Arts Statement seems to imply that transhumanists must uphold longevity as a value, but an alternative would be to claim that it is up to the individual posthuman what he values.  Even from an evolutionary perspective, the longevity of individuals might not be in the interest of the species.

Thus, according to Sorgner, Mormon transhumanist becomes a bit of an oxymoron.

There does seem to be a developing bifurcation between scientists and their ilk, and non-scientists.  The scientific community seems to be gravitating away from structured religion toward agnosticism and atheism.  While many non-scientists want to hold on to the outdated mythologies of the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This bifurcation seems driven, in part, by the inability of religious institutions to keep up with the advances of science.  This inability becomes particularly critical as the advances in science and technology accelerate.

It does seem that many Mormon beliefs concerning the hereafter dovetail well with many of the values held by transhumanists.  So if one is predisposed to believe in God, Mormonism might provide a reasonable bridge between religion and science (and transhumanism).  It does seem that a transhumanist can hold a belief in an afterworld.