From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Jun 16 2001 - 09:46:06 MDT
Waldemar Inghdahl <waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se> Wrote:
>A well thought philosophy is indeed the foundation of transhumanism,
You have it backward, in the real world people decide what they want to do
and then rack their brains to dream up a philosophical reason to justify it.
>as Lenin said "without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a
>revolutionary movement".
Do you really think anybody on this list cares what a scientific and economic illiterate
who is also a mass murderer has to say?
>Engels and his buddy Karl Marx were historical materialists, but even they
>understood that the sources and importance of ideas could be understood
> from the political context.
I far rather hear Groucho's opinion on the state of the world than Karl's.
>a notion that technolgy by itself will enable the dynamistic society,
>which hasn't been defined though.
it's your buzz phrase, you tell me what dynamistic society means.
>The cybergnostics see transhumanism as a step AWAY from something,
>not towards something.
No need to tell us what "cybergnostics" is because the above would still contain
zero content, every step away from something is a step toward something.
>We must identify, value, make conscious, and radicalize the groups that
>are the bearers of such ideas. This isn't done by sitting in front of a computer,
On the contrary, one line of good computer code is worth a hundred lines from a
political tract that, like all political tracts, uses the word "struggle" a lot. If you want
to be useful make specific recommendations not vague philosophy about ideology.
>" nanotechnology, AI, genetics etc. have nothing to do with transhumanism!"
What a remarkably silly thing to say.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:09 MST