Attacked again-- 07-- Practicality vs. Principle

Point of order-- See previous Attacked Again entries in the alpha index below for the background on this. The argument I was confronted with recently is that I was basically accused of harming cryonics by discussing the political and economic philosophies of Lyndon Laround on the same blog as I discuss cryonics. The accuser was pretty straightforward with that accusation-- saying that he didn't care what the "logic" was of Lyndon Larouche's ideas-- that it was more important that "most people" think Lyndon Larouche is a "nut" and that by discussion cryonics in the same blog as Lyndon Larouche that the itinerant readers on the interent would think cryonics had something to do with Lyndon Larounche-- and that therefore cryonics was nutty or bad or something. So I've struggled with that issue over the past several days.

The issue appears to me, today, to be one of practicality vs. principle. My accuser obviously is concerned about the practicality of what I'm doing-- intertwining ideas associated with cryonics and ideas associated with Lyndon Larouche. And yet-- that very intertwining is precisely my point-- and HAS been my point since 2002 when I had published, in Cryonics magazine, the article "Introduction to Classical Futurehumanism". As a result of Alcor's publishing that article, the Alcor board from that point took over a much more rigorous monitering of articles to be published since I managed to get Larouches name printed in that publicationo-- which shocked a lot of people apparently. Still, it stands as a point of reference in cryonics history.

The practicality of having the itinerant readers happen upon my blog and see that I view cryonics as within a CONTEXT of CLASSICAL HUMANISM-- which is what larouche represents is a GOOD THING for cryonics, not a bad thing. To say that I'm hurting cryonics by doing that is an insult to Larouche, me and the entire world of Classical Humanists (Christians). It's essentailly a religious attack. And it's an attack by someone who considers "logic" to the apex of human mindpower-- but "logic" is a tool in the higher powers of HUMAN REASON. The fact that this person directly attacked my ability to speak on the internet using an ILLOGICAL schema-- setting me up with a FALSE CHOICE-- either 1. separate my topics or 2. harm cryonics-- is an indicator that this person is ANTI-CLASSICAL HUMANIST.

Cryonics is, in principle, a very interesting and workable concept-- and we're getting to the point in the cryonics industry-- where we see that the time betwen the pronouncment of legal death and the first perfusion involving a washout and replacement of blood with standard organ preservation solution is the single most critical phase for the operation right now. The possibilty that if we are able to maintain structure, that we can eventually restart function-- is getting better-- and better all the time-- and could one day lead to a situation where we essentailly don't have to die. Repair and rejuvenation will be continual. The "physical immortality" possibility is as Ettinger first established, with Ev Cooper, in 1963. (It's still to be determined whose publication made it to the Library of Congress first- Ettinger won't tell me and Mike Perry is politely sidestepping-- that's one thing Mike is-- polite, if not effective and complete).

The PRINCIPLE established in Classical Humanism-- LONG before cryonics was ever thought of-- and the BASIS for my article in Cryonics magazine in 2002-- which I suggest my detractors (and attackers read carefully again)-- is that CLASSICAL IMMORTALITY precedes physical immortality. It has to. It did in history. It does now. And it will always. This isn't to say that PHYSICAL immortality isn't something we strive for now-- but it's IN ADDITION to Classical Immortality. My attackers REJECT Classical Immorality-- to THEIR DETRIMENT, the detriment of their fans, mankind AND cryonics. THEY are the ones who therefore do NOT do cryonics a service in the larger scheme of things. They are INTER-GENERATIONALLY corrupt, in my view.

Corrupt cryonicists? What a concept! Is it possible? I think it is. I think it's possible to have PRINCIPLES cryonics-- and for those who pursue practicactly with NO PRINCIPLE-- there's where you get into trouble-- It's not neeccessarly going to lead to corruption but it could because without a LARGER FRAME of REFERENCe-- you don't know WHERE you are i the grand scheme of thigns. Now-- i could get more specific. But I'll leave it there for now-- becuase to get more specific would lead to the revelation of the approximate attacker-- and I'm trying to not embaraass him-- although he's put himself in that position with his attack on me.

So when he says I hurt cryonics by discussing Larouche, he's wrong. I HELP cryonics by reframing cryonics in the context of Larouche's philosophy called Classical Humanism. HIs economic philosophy is the most honest and forthright I've ever seen because its informed by ancient and recent history beyond anything I've ever read before. It's not just "true" for "me" as another of my readers so blithely and santimoniously SNEERED-- as though "truth" is relative. NOT. Cryoncists, it appeasr to me, are BRAINWASHED into being ANTI-CLASSICAL HUMANISTS-- and I basically don't assocaite with any of them anymore. I remain signed up for cryonics AS A CLASSICAL SUPERHUMANIST-- which is Classical Humanism spliced with ideas of TransHumanism.

I could go on this morning but I'm ready for another cup of coffee. If you're an itinterant reader-- and you're thinking about cryonics-- good for you! I would urge you that to help cryonics you consider Classical Humanism too, as a larger contextual frame. I'm not the world's authority on this-- but I'm the ONLY PERSON THE EARTH at THIS TIME-- who is looking at this... and I have ONLY had rejection (I've been banned from all cryonics forums) and have experienced ONLY attacks on my thesis-- NO support. But I know that my position is valid.... and my definition of "knowing" will be looked at soon-- and my definition of "my position" will be looked at.

Hello to my subscribers-- all 2 of you-- who are not friendly-- I already know that. Therefore-- I've cut off the response areas of my forums and this blog-- although you can email me your insults, threats, attacks, etc at philossifur@yahoo.com. I would aak that my attackers restrain themselves from making my life difficult by sending material to anything associated with my business, friends and family-- this is a informed internet oreitned debate-- and should remain civilized. I remind you that you don't OWN the concept of cryonics-- and that by rights of freedeom in America-- and the First Amendment (I think)-- I have a right to frame cryonics in Classical Humanism. Your assault on me for that and your accusation that I'm harming cryonics is noted and is now part of cryonics history-- don't make it worse. Thank you.

Here's a suggestion for you ANTI-CLASSICAL HUMANISTS-- Go frame cryonics your own way on your own blog. In effect, go blog yourself. Or blog off.