Author
|
Topic: Proposed Meridion Vote Regarding Saints (Read 934 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.91
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Proposed Meridion Vote Regarding Saints
« on: 2010-05-30 17:11:43 » |
 |
As it stands.
http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki/StVirus
Quote:
I propose that we have a sainthood vote on Charles Darwin, since he was initially illuminated by fiat only. And as a part of that vote, I would propose that we order the saints in their chronological life order for memetic reasons. The actual date of their illumination should of course remain included in the basic information, but thats only something special to us. For the rest of the world digesting the information for the first time, it would make more sense and that is what we are most interested in going forward. So as completed Hypatia would be the first saint, Darwin would be the second saint, and Turing would be the third.
I think this also has a nice story to it. Our first saint is lost really. We know she existed, was intelligent, gathered the best knowledge of the day, was virtuous and of unparalleled intelligence, but the Christians killed her and her death marks the beginning of the dark ages. We saint her as a reminder to us of the fragility of civilization and in respect to the power of her memory and story which survived the collapse. We know this much, that she existed and died, so she's not really lost, but Christians spent centuries trying to burn her words and memories and it seems largely succeeded. However her image was sneaked into art, and her story lived on and Christianity lost in the end because of that. They only have witch hunts and book burnings to show for their efforts.
Charles Darwin gave us evolution 1.0 and through science showed us what religion never could - the true story of our origins. The Chistians didn't like that either. They banned books, corrupted the curriculum, lied about science, claimed false science for creationism, and so forth. We still politically fight these efforts today. And in the midst of this all, Alan Turing brings us evolution 2.0 - computer algorithms, the Turing Test, concepts of Artificial intelligence, and the beginings of a mathematics of biology. We continue to see the results of evolution 2.0 today in our culture, as we can now comprehend and understand memes through computer and internet searches of ever growing and colectivizing online library of knowledge made possible through the seeds planted by Alan Turing before his death.
Anyhow we don't need to vote on that whole story of course, but I would propose a chronological presentation order of the saints and a sainthood vote on Charles Darwin. I suppose they could be two separate votes, but I figure that the Darwin vote is simply an affirmation of the assumptions we've been operating on all along. Its just a test to make sure that the Meridion does its job and crazy people don't take over or anything like that just because we don't act by fiat. Perhaps Hermit may think of a clever argument against Darwin that I can't, but even given that it should be easy to produce a decisive vote. So I just say at the same time we may as well tidy up the order. Since neither vote requires anyone to bring any new information we haven't already incorporated they are similar and should be done at the same time. Perhaps two votes on the ballot if you really want 'em, but I don't see why.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.91
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Proposed Meridion Vote Regarding Saints
« Reply #1 on: 2010-06-01 16:03:18 » |
|
I discussed this with Lucifer in #virus IRC:
Quote:17:06:56 Lucifer * Lucifer looks
17:08:47 Lucifer Darwin was made a saint before we had Meridion
17:09:19 MoEnzyme right.
17:09:25 MoEnzyme by fiat.
17:09:30 Lucifer exactly
17:09:36 Lucifer We can vote on it if you wish
17:09:42 Lucifer but I won't change the history
17:09:57 Lucifer Adding a chronological order is a good idea
17:10:13 Lucifer but I don't want to replace the illumination order
17:11:07 Lucifer of course we can vote on that too 
17:11:20 Lucifer I will go with the will of Meridion
17:12:01 MoEnzyme Right, the vote on Darwin wouldn't say Darwin was never a saint, it would just be more of an affirmation.
17:12:44 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme considers a Meridion Vote to make Lucifer our collective slave 
17:12:54 Lucifer ha
17:13:51 MoEnzyme well I'll give a week or so to percolate in the BBS.
17:13:58 Lucifer * Lucifer nods |
Lucifer,
Of course Darwin has always been our first saint illuminated by fiat - that's our history. He never wasn't a saint for us and one would assume that subsequent Meridion votes to illuminate other saints would tend to confirm the validity of the original illumination of St. Darwin. However, we've never subjected Darwin directly to any Meridion election process other than just giving him a reputation. And now that we have at least two examples of Meridion election/illumination, perhaps we should complete the process by having an actual Meridion election on St. Darwin himself. Perhaps it might make for an interesting discussion anyway, but it could also present an opportunity to reconcile procedures with what works via the Meridion system now that we have some practice at it.
-Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 3.91
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Proposed Meridion Vote Regarding Saints
« Reply #2 on: 2010-07-10 23:17:59 » |
|
Thinking about it some more, I don't really see a reason to have a Meridion vote to do this. First off, Darwin, . . . sounded like a good idea for a minute, but I'm not sure there's much of a point to that. As for the order of presentation, I don't see why that should be a meridion vote. We aren't changing anything in the doctrine, and as long as there is good reason for the presentation order and no one objects it would probably be best just to edit the wiki accordingly.
I think chronology would work best as our default presentation. Of course if anyone is asking about our actual history of illumination, then in that case Darwin is our first saint. Otherwise Hypatia is our first saint, then Darwin, then Turing. Unless anyone has some serious objections to that, I think we don't need a Meridion vote here.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
