>> IAN: Natasha asks all the right questions that spontaneously
>> answer themselves (talk about efficient!). But at the same
>> time Doug raises an important question that pertains to the
>> meaning of transhuman. I think that the answer here is that
>> "transhumanization" is not equivalent to "dehumanization,"
>> even though such an equivalence can be extrapolated from
>> the term "transhuman."
>
>Exactly! This is a meme we should really do our best to dispell, since
>it is so common and so convenient for our attackers (rule no. 1 of all
>propaganda: dehumanize your opponent). In swedish we can at least pun
>"medmänsklighet och mermänsklighet" (compassion and transhumanity,
>lit. "morehumanity") :-)
IAN: Definitions of "transcend" indicate that to
transcend is to surpass, "to go beyond the ordinary
limits of... to outdo or exceed in excellence, extent,
degree, etc.; surpass; excel."[*] As I see it, we could
not therefore properly extrapolate from the application
of the term "transcend" to "human" -- "transhuman" -- an
annihilation of what it is to be human. Very much to the
contrary, "transhuman" implies a profound expansion of
what it is to be human, such that "transhumanization"
must imply the very inverse of "dehumanization."
_____________________________________________
[*] Randon House Webster's College Dictionary
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
GODDARD'S METAPHYSICS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________________