From: Waldemar Ingdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 15:13:19 MDT
Hello everybody, I' m back on the list- hope you had a great summer
För nu blir det bongo!
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:44:27 +0200
From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: Mind/Body dualism What's the deal?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 06:04:48PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Let's agree that thinking the material world as something "bad" is a
> very strange notion (to say the very least), and that we do not think so.
Well, my point was that quite a few transhumanists do have such notions.
> > A cybergnostic would do this, although many people who
> > are in practice cybergnostics have not thought through
> > these issues very carefully and simply reflexively say
> > that uploading is good. Once you start to pick at the
> > question *why* uploading is a good thing, then much of
> > cybergnosticism evaporates.
>
> It's such a catchy term, "cybergnosticism". Can you say anything
> further critical about it beyond the "cybergnostics" think that
> the physical world is inherently bad? Is there any reason that
> we shouldn't co-opt (i.e. steal) the term from them?
Well, the problem is that to a large extent *we* are the cybergnostics -
to my knowledge there are no groups calling themselves cybergnostics in
the sense I used.
The original argument against them was made in June by Waldemar Ingdahl,
who pointed out the tendency of transhumanists to turn towards
technonaivism and cybergnosticism instead of dealing with real issues.
Thinking that technology is the solution to every problem (or the only
interesting solution) or that everything will be better in the far
future so we don't have to worry much about the present is clearly a bad
thing. I was using the term cybergnosticism in a more narrow sense to
denote a certain position about uploading (and sometimes AI) as opposed
to the physical world.
OK so this is the debate Anders talked to me about some week ago.
Lets give the definition of cybergnosticism and techno naivism (BTW both the terms are jury rigged from the marxist- leninist discourse ;-) again from my post in June for clarity.
"All radical movements, and transhumanism is indeed a radical movement as it aspires to a deep societal change has to face difficulties such as right wing opportunism and left wing sectarianism. In transhumanism these are techno naivism and cybergnosticism. They attack and question the practicality of the ideology.
The techno naivist just sees technology. Hence the endless stream of e- mails that tell us about "company x has made a new disc driver. Cool!". It is a notion that technology by itself will enable the dynamistic society, which hasn't been defined though. That technological progress may be stopped in a philosophically adverse climate is something that the techno naive doesn't want to think about. Technology and philosophy as a side project, a game, but when the effects of technology are to be assessed and when thinking of what is needed to implement it and how it should be implemented the techno naive get very quiet.
This depends on the lack of ideological consciousness, the analysis of present day society and societal sciences with genuine transhumanist thoughts. In fact they cannot conceive of analysing society with transhumanist tools. Often I see people on this list say that wish to be in the political midfield of politics. My question to them is "you say that you what to be in the political midfield. With the present's political climate this means that you stand somewhere between ultra- stasism and stasism light, aren't you a dynamist?". This question would be extremely difficult for the techno naive since it removes transhumanism away from the closed college campus into a deeper analysis where a concrete approach on today's philosophical and political climate is required.
In reality, you have to face that the present day climate is adverse to both liberal and humanist thoughts, and a big conflict is needed to reverse the trend. And that thought scares them.
Why does it make them afraid? As previously said they lack a genuine transhumanist analysis of society. They value the narrow range of transhumanism that they are interested in from with the ideas of other ideologies (and since these other ideas often are eclectically absorbed from the current philosophical climate they don't even know exactly what ideas they are measuring with)
Transhumanism didn't start with Max More or ExI. It started on the Acropolis in ancient Greece! It is in fact a long philosophical tradition. That is why it isn't seen today as a universalist philosophy. Neither geographically (it is valuable just as much in Stockholm, Sweden as in San José, California and Dakha, Bangladesh) nor chronologically (just as valuable today as it was in the 17th century as in the 23rd century). Connections to other parts of the philosophy aren't made, and in that context of course transhumanism seems crazy and impractical, because the techno naive doesn't value the practicality of transhumanism from it's own cultural analysis. Transhumanist practice must be valued and supported from a transhumanist ethics, transhumanist economics, transhumanist sociology etc. In order to have the good discussion outwards (and breaking the deadlock of being a basement movement) you must be able to bulid a sound foundation for your ideas, that will give them a new strength for yourself.
The cybergnostics see transhumanism as a step AWAY from something, not towards something. Many of them have a very bad self- image and very low estimation of their own bodies and their place in today' s society. Technology is to give the cybergnostic a dignity he hasn't achieved on his own. Technology is seen as something disconnected from the rest of the world, a kind of magic. I think that for many of the cybergnostics transhumanism was the first encounter with philosophy and politics in their lives. They do not understand how societal changes are effected in reality, and thus transhumanism took on the nature of faith for these.
The problem is that this brings in an escatological view of transhumanism, one day it will appear! In an enormous amount of new techniques that are implemented in a very advanced form at the same moment. Often they have the view that they will build these techniques by themselves, alone. But technological innovations aren't achieved that way. They are gradual and cumulative. Big innovating leaps are extremely rare. This especially goes for the very advanced technologies often discussed on this list, these really require enormous amounts of coordination of knowledge and resources in order to take these small steps.
Thus transhumanism becomes impossible to discuss on a concrete level. There are no steps, either today or the hazy post- human future. Transhumanism is then reduced to a far- ethics, that maybe wont be able to get applied at all since we know so little about transhumanism' s future form.
It is striking that often the cybergnostic also lacks knowledge of where science and technology stand today. And in which direction they point. Since transhumanism for many became an article of faith it remained in the view of the early 90's of these technologies. But then we lacked knowledge about them, much was just educated guesses and uncertain extrapolations. But the year is 2001 and these technologies have taken unexpected turns now that they become feasible for application. It also forces transhumanism to answer new questions. This couldn't be accepted, transhumanism in many respects remained in the early 90' s. The road turned, but transhumanism didn't. And if the road turns often enough you will loose faith, since it is increasingly removed from reality.
The important part here is the understanding of the immense value of ideas. Change is dependent on subjective elements that are formed of convictions, analysis, and human action, both individually and collectively. When Friedrich Engels lauded the German workes in "The peasant war in Germany" he especially pointed at three elements in their success:
"For the first time since a workers' movement was formed the struggle is fought with a plan, in conjunction and context from these three sides: the theoretical, the political and the practical- economical"
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. Ideas then have their ground in the material base, and a change should be implemented through practical politics, rather than philosophizing as the ideologies of today will remain for as long as today's factors of production remain the same. Thus Marx' "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in different ways, but the point lies in changing it" (from "Das Elend des Philosophies", if I'm not mistaken).
This doesn't mean that the material terms are unimportant, but in a situation where there alternatives to choose the subjective elements will decide the course.
Both techno naivists and cybergnostics wish to withdraw from political reality, for different reasons. The techno naive gradually cocoons himself into his narrow field, without all the "difficult stuff". The cybergnostic tends to remove himself from all politics in order not to have to take a stand of any kind of concrete questions. Both long to a safe haven away from the demands and responsabillites of politics. The techno naive might find it in his enclosed space in campus or his workplace, where transhumanism is increasingly put to dust in a drawer, or to rot among the garden gnomes of suburbia. The cybergnostic writes bitter attacks on bush- league mailing lists or confused analysis from the viewer's stand while dreaming of uploading himself- which somehow never seems to happen.
Both desperately tell themselves that it is pointless or unnecessary to uphold a political struggle. And if these movements go as far as today it will be difficult to even perceive them in the internal debate, since they have broken down the credibility fo the transhumanist ideas for so many. The really frightening part is that the same person may flip between a techno naivist and a cybergnostic point of view to compensate for his own flaws.
They are utterly wrong. There are no white spots on the maps where politics doesn't reach. The only way to withdraw from politics (the application of a moral system on society) is to withdraw from civilization.
The political task of transhumanism at this historical point must be to maximize the individual freedom and developement potential within the bounds of a society that offers well- being through capital- and knowledge intense production, and accelerating technological advances and their successful application (also from a moral standpoint). This is achieved by a sytematic transfer of power from stasist structures to dynamist structures. 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, this is done by taking part of public debate and showing oneself in the right circles and the right palces. The groups that are the bearers of such change are mainly found in civil society, but also in the political sphere. To this scope we need a cadre of dedicated, ideologically conscious and competent transhumanist that are active within, or in conjuction to these groups. The right persons givning the message in the right way and in the right forums. In sort the missionaries and the entrepreneurs that transhumanism so badly lacks.
In many ways transhumanism's greatest mistake way that it tried to immediately realize an activist movement. Activism is important, but it is difficult. It must be thouroughly supported by a strong intellectual movement.
This is the challege I put forth: transhumanism must become a philosophical- political project. It must gain intellectual strength.
In this an analysis of contemporary society is badly needed, made from an ideological point of view. The strange fact is that so much effort has been put into desperately avoiding that transhumanism should become a "sect" and keeping it open to everything, without even having a concretised ideology. And sometimes put the feet down and say "that is not transhumanism".
As citizens we stand in front of a different situation than as individuals- to influence the socio- political environment where we live, in order to secure the long range terms of our ideas survival and victory. The debate in present society is so dominated by stasist views that our ideas are viewed with hostility or incomprehention by many. But friends of liberty and progess cannot allow themselves to just float around. Without active hosts the transhumanist meme will surely die."
So the correct usage of this term is in the context of politics and pointing out pitfalls (that also affect other movements) in order to construct a strategy for victory for the transhumanist ideas.
Ciao
Waldemar Ingdahl
CEO Eudoxa
Towards Eudaimonia!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:01 MST