From: Steve (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 17:20:07 MDT
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:38:55 -0700
From: Max More <max@maxmore.com>
Subject: Re: Extropia.net, Zines &c.
>>I think it is a great hypocrisy coming from an organisation that does (or
>>use to) run an ezine called "Posthuman Lounge."
> Second, Extropy Institute (who I presume you are
>referring to) has never run an email list called "Posthuman Lounge".
Posthuman lounge is run by Sabine Katja Atkins, Extropy Institute
(Lifetime Member and Executive Board: Media Relations) see
http://www.posthuman.com/sabine/ ... haven't you heard of her Max?
>>On the subject of "misrepresentations." ... it is the Extropian/ trans
>>notion of "Posthuman" as some non-attainable future
>>state who actually are misrepresenting the term. For correct understanding
>>see http://www.multi.co.uk/identity.htm
>You have your own understanding of "posthuman", though the page you refer
>to does not provide a clear definition or conception. We are not
>misrepresenting" the term. No standard definition exists, but I would (and
>have) argued that the usual extropian use of the term "posthuman" makes
>good sense. Your claim to be posthuman now makes no sense to me, and even
>raises concern of fraud if you are using this idea to sell "MVT Therapy".
I have been trying to establish a clear concept of what it is to be
Posthuman for
many years, and if we all start using different definitions no standard will
emerge. Whereas your Extropy Institute DOES seem to be a money-making
organisiation (raising concern of fraud?) .... I have never expected to
profit from
the Posthuman Movement, which remains free to all. Sure, I have sold books
on
of MVT, but am making these publications available FREE online when my
new ISP is sorted out.
>In addition, how can you so rigidly argue that your understanding is RIGHT
>and ours WRONG, yet also say:
Where have I used these words??? I only think my undertanding of what it is
to
become Posthuman is BETTER, and the Extropian notion of posthuman is
the one which is unclear. We use different criteria for judging claims to
be
posthuman .... but such claims are always disputable, as are claims to be
"Trans" human. I don't think patterns of words are the main issue here
though,
but want to use the Posthuman idea to TRANSFORM society and people's
life experience for the better.
>>As a philosophical idealist I think !everything! is subjective.
>By the way, idealism does *not* necessarily imply subjectivism (whether
>metaphysical or epistemological, between which you don't seem to
>distinguish). It sounds like you are actually a solipsist.
I am not a Berkleyian 'Mind of God' Idealist, or any other Philosophical
brand of Idealist prior to MVT, but do prioritise sensation/ experience
before
'matter' which can only be 'known of' via the conscious subject/ experience.
What I am interested in is the evolution of the brain from E-2 to E-1, with
accompanying circuit organisational change from hard-wired to
infinite-state.
Since MVT makes the case for a 'phantom' locus of consciousness, it seems to
follow that the whole thing is a trick of nature/ hallucination/ illusion
...... so I think
that I go back even further than solipsism ... and doubt that I even "exist"
since 'I'
am a ghost. Not even "I think therefore I am' ... just "I think/
hallucinate" .. not I exist.
>Since I don't plan on writing on this again, I'll now comment on two other
>things on that page:
>>The adoption of a neutral 'non-label' (posthuman/neo/X-) implies just that
>>the next step in evolution is 'after', and embodies no value judgements. I
>>wish to make it clear that I do not think that persuading yourself that
>>you are post-human will necessarily lead to any 'special powers' (but I am
>>not ruling that out either).
>Your last comment implies that you actually think this is quite likely.
>Which special powers do you think it most likely someone could gain from
>persuading yourself that you are posthuman? (I don't count delusion as a
>special power.)
Hmmm ... I am deliberately as non-committal as I can be on this point ...
are
we reading the same words here?
However, I don't want to rule out development of powers & advances in
our cognition and faculties ... why would you or anyone want to? Perhaps
if human "beingness" is an outworn, bottle-neck, limiting identity .. then
just
playing with the notion that you have transcended this condition might lead
to freedom and liberation of latent potential. Who knows ..... but why not
be
optimistic given a choice between that and pessimism & nay-saying?
<snip>
>The term "transhuman" has no universally agreed definition, so I speak only
>for myself. First, sensible usage and usage consistent with other
>terminology suggests cleanly separating "transhuman" from "transhumanist".
>It is entirely reasonable to put "Extropian" and "Transhumanist" together
>in many discussions, since the first is a particular version of the second.
>Transhumanity comes in many stages from very early or mild changes all the
>way into clearly posthuman. I won't object to saying that posthuman
>includes much of transhuman. But it's just as true that human includes much
>of transhuman.
What worries me a little about all of this is that outsiders think that us
radical futurists are self-absorbed and too concerned with schisms,
terminological debates and logic chopping. Meanwhile Islam is the fastest
growing religion in the USA and across the world, and the tired old human
politicians carry on with the same blinkered ideologies and dialogue.
Are we attracting a mass of opinion towards our issues and actually making
much of a dent on world events? I do think everyone is different, and
various
emphasises should be catered for ..... perhaps my desire to be Posthuman/
Neohuman NOW suits some personality types, and more reticent, gradualist
individuals want to kick the possibility for real & immediate change into
the
long grass. But whatever stylistic & identity choices we make, there are
nonetheless more commonalities between our outlooks (anti-supernaturalism,
pro-cryonics, proactive /anti-Darwinian evolution, Rationalism & Science &c)
than differences.
>>As for the title, I prefer to keep a fairly abstract heading, but already
>>have the subheading "Official Journal of the Post-Human Movement"
>Who are the Officials who made this "official"? If someone else wants to
>start a publication, does this mean you have the authority to shut them
>down? Perhaps "original" might be more defensible than "official".
Hardly ... take the case of the Posthuman Lounge!!! The problem with
"Original Jounal" is that this could ambiguously be read as the original
edition.
But I am not particularly hung up on words, and might change the sub-heading
at some point.
>I found your message, beginning with a false accusation and peppered with
>philosophical errors, frustrating.
I think I have dealt with the "false" accusation since the PH Lounge is
indeed
run by the Extropy MEDIA RELATIONS board official.
Errors, wot errors? I don't think you have established any.
>I am replying here to clarify issues for
>those unfamiliar with these distinctions.
>Max
Yes, there is a value in both dialectic and clarification. Concepts can
bear more than one interpretation, and we are both in our way pushing
in favour of one interpretation rather than another. Diversity of view is
perhaps necessary, but individuals with something to gain from the radical
futurist perspective should not be put off by any impression of
totalitarianism.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:00 MST