From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 11:24:16 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: SV: Political views?
> Waldemar Inghdahl wrote:
> >
>
> > Instead of fighting over if there should be a government or not, at this stage, it is better to put the energies into winning ground for a broader and more visionary political discussion, instead of the narrow and ideologically void political discussion held today. A discussion where it is necessary to think big, in order to think small. In other words the contrary to the technical, administrative (with cynical notes) inside the boundaries of the 20th century nation- state corporativism that is prevalent today. A discussion where this 20th century project became so prevalent that all discussion of principles became erased. The goals became completely paramount, the only thing left to discuss was the best way to administer the system- reducing politics to administration.
> >
> >
>
> But the above answer simply assumes there should be government
> and that it is should be the that which "thinks big", does it
> not? Why should the central discussion be political per se
> rather than something else like technological, visionary,
> generally memetic and so on?
Because politics is the implementation of a specific morality in society. There cannot be a neutral "technological" or "visionary" (such a vague, no- impact term) discussion. The meaning inherent in these terms is given by morality and ideology.
If transhumanism further fails to give a cultural context to the technologies and cultural developments it is discussing, it will further devolve, while others give the context of the new millenium. Where is the transhumanist Manuel Castells?
It itself the term "politics" hasn't anything to do with the present administrative system. It is the application of a specific morality on the society in which it is present. Today, we must assume that there is a government, with an enormous amount of control (which has actually gotten bigger thanks to increased regulations and higher tax revenues)- but this government isn't necessarily the end point.
Side note on memtics. Memetics has often in transhumanist circles been seen as an apologetic term. "Memes" will spread on their own, it is often assumed. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The friends of liberty and progess cannot allow themselves to just float around. Without active hosts the transhumanist meme will surely die.
> >The 20th century project has failed, but nothing has risen to take it' s place, so it keeps on going (but now with a high degree of cynicism).
> >
>
> The "20th century project" actually succeeded hugely as it
> brought us to the place where we have this many options and
> pssibilities. I agree though that the same game is not
> appropriate now.
Many of the positive effects you're discussing were derivating from the 19th century project. The 20th century project was a reactionary approach. Centralization, technocracy, nationalism, collectivism and homogenisation. That' s why we are back in 1901 today, the leap forward was to leave the 20th century's culture and ideology behind.
> > That's why I call myself a dynamist primarily. We' ll have the >discussion about minarchy or anarchy after we have gained a lot of >pull in the debate, and change many things in today's society. But >not now- today we have to fight techno naivism and cybergnosticism >in our own ranks, and concentrate on raising the level of the debate.
> >
>
> What do you mean by these terms precisely (or as much so as
> possible)?
Dynamist- stasist. Terms from Virginia Postrel's book "The future and its enemies"
Minarchy- a small government that is only preoccupied with protecting the lives, freedom and proprierty of its citizens.
Anarchy- dispense even with the above. Order is preserved by other means.
Techno naivism and cybergnosticism, see my previous letter "The problem with transhumanism".
Waldemar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:10 MST