Monday, July 21, 2008
Religion 2.0
Anyone who has read the early O'Reilly article on Web 2.0 can probably see that the idea of Web 2.0 is of potential use. Going further and considering experimental philosophy, we can see that this is a very serious academic discipline, and indeed one that a good many people conceive as realistic.
I thought: We have Philosophy 2.0 and Psychology 2.0 - and indeed I probably was the very first serious person to conceive these ideas but am still struggling to get them onto arXiv. So would Religion 2.0 help a lot of people - and I fear I speak mainly of agnostics, would be atheists and the like. So I did a Google search - and yes, it is there. Religion 2.0 exists.
Religion 2.0 has a long way to go, however, and bears some of the feelings of Californian cultism. Now Richard Feynmann seems to have seriously considered Californian cultism and if he had persisted he may have done useful things, but at the moment it is at best hardly banausic - in fact Californian cultism is probably best ignored for those without personal or cash interests, as some of Feynmann's rough comments seem to indicate.But Feynmann seems to have been a serious fellow, in fact he even published his first work on Quantum Computing in a scientific journal I founded and ran for 7 years.
A typical comment in Religion 2.0 might read "We are seeing a paradigm shift in collective consciousness to our true essence. You are now part of the great intention experiment."
IMO: Religion 2.0 has a very long way to go yet, and whether it will ever get there at this rate is perhaps vey doubtful. At best it is probably still rather Betty Shine in its appearance, but that can't be bad.
Anyone who has read the early O'Reilly article on Web 2.0 can probably see that the idea of Web 2.0 is of potential use. Going further and considering experimental philosophy, we can see that this is a very serious academic discipline, and indeed one that a good many people conceive as realistic.
I thought: We have Philosophy 2.0 and Psychology 2.0 - and indeed I probably was the very first serious person to conceive these ideas but am still struggling to get them onto arXiv. So would Religion 2.0 help a lot of people - and I fear I speak mainly of agnostics, would be atheists and the like. So I did a Google search - and yes, it is there. Religion 2.0 exists.
Religion 2.0 has a long way to go, however, and bears some of the feelings of Californian cultism. Now Richard Feynmann seems to have seriously considered Californian cultism and if he had persisted he may have done useful things, but at the moment it is at best hardly banausic - in fact Californian cultism is probably best ignored for those without personal or cash interests, as some of Feynmann's rough comments seem to indicate.But Feynmann seems to have been a serious fellow, in fact he even published his first work on Quantum Computing in a scientific journal I founded and ran for 7 years.
A typical comment in Religion 2.0 might read "We are seeing a paradigm shift in collective consciousness to our true essence. You are now part of the great intention experiment."
IMO: Religion 2.0 has a very long way to go yet, and whether it will ever get there at this rate is perhaps vey doubtful. At best it is probably still rather Betty Shine in its appearance, but that can't be bad.
# posted by uv : 12:24 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
