From: Steve Nichols (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 11:09:15 MST
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:39:40 -0500
From: Michael Lorrey <mike@datamann.com>
Subject: Re: Heston Speech
> >Since a) there are no posthumans,
S> Nonsense, I have been post-human since the early 1980's, and Blavatsky,
S> Mather's and other were 'more-than-human' back in the C19th.
>And many socialists have been calling themselves 'anarchists' since
>Kruschev's speech, or since the fall of the USSR. Saying something
>doesn't make it so, nor does inventing our own definitions for words.
Excuse me, Blavatsky was writing about "post-humans" since 1888,
and I have been explaining posthuman philosophy and publishing since
the early 1980's ... it is your (more recent) definition which is wrong!
> and b) the singularity has not >occurred,
>
S> Hopefully, and probably, never will. Wot a bunch of speculation and
dogma.
S> Singularity is either the centre of a black hole, or a Leibnitzean monad
as
S> far as I am concerned ... or has anyone demonstrated another kind?
>By definition, posthumans will not exist until the singularity occurs,
Your "singularity" is a fiction that won't happen ... rather like the
"rapture."
What single shred of evidence do you have for it? Who wants to become
the Borg anyway .... I prefer Dr. Who who fights against would-be daleks!
>so either you should be for the singularity occurring so that you might
>one day call yourself posthuman, or else stop claiming to be post human.
After (or post-) human simply indicates whatever identity comes
after the "human being" stage of history .... "trans-" human is subset
of the after/post-human identity ... for if we are "transitional" then we
are already different from "non-transitional" humans.
>
> c) nobody can make any rational claim as to what 'posthuman
> >aesthetic' is, nor is situationalism in any way extropic.
S> Sure, claims are meaningless. It is down to us to forge the new
aesthetics,
S> and who says it should be a single standard? Situationalism/ survivalism/
S> and pragmatism are an alternative to theory-laden, dogmatic approaches.
S> It is best to stay flexible, react to the presenting realities without
> filtering
S> out any of the big picture because of ideological blinkers (extropic
S> or otherwise). Why restrict yourself and lock-in to some dogma, even if
S> a futurist/ progressive one? Evolution is about SURVIVAL mainly.
>Rejecting situationalism does not require dogman. It only requires
>principle. In our case, the Extropian principles are quite fine, and are
>not dogmatic, nor are they situationalist.
You might think you can reject (the theory of) situationism ... but
no principles can withstand every real and potential situation!
Light in Extension
www.Steve-Nichols.com
MVT solves the mind-body problem
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:06 MST