From: Kathryn Aegis (aegis@igc.apc.org)
Date: Tue Oct 20 1998 - 06:17:42 MDT
Nick tried to include this in this thread earlier, and I stopped him because
I typed it off-the cuff. But it is actually a good explanation of my
thinking of how I decided to restructure the approach to defining
transhumanism. I no longer think that transhumanism can be defined in one part.
.....But, to define 'transhumanism', one should describe it as an area of
human thought and endeavor focusing on certain ideas and certain avenues of
research, which can include technology, sociology, psychology, art, etc. Of
which the object is the 'transhuman', or trying to become one. In other
words, the 'transhuman' or 'posthuman' represents a concrete manifestation
of 'tranhumanism'.
Transhumanism, in its barest form, could be defined in dictionary format in
two parts as (i) 'the field of study focusing on the transhuman' and (ii)
'the set of human endeavors to become a transhuman.' If we set up a
two-part expanded definition paralleling this in the FAQ, it would go a long
way towards resolving the stupid endless argument between the technologists
and philosophers that has plagued us since the beginning. I've been
thinking in dictionary terms lately, because the editors of the OED are in
fact considering adding these two terms to the OED, and they are tending
towards this sort of structure in a definition as well.
Kathryn Aegis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:40 MST