From: Waldemar Inghdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2001 - 07:00:12 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: SV: SV: Political views? (and Problem with Transhumanism)
> > 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.
>
>
> I mispoke. And perhaps I put words in your most. What I meant
> was to ask Why should such a discussion require the involvement
> of centralized government at all?
It is not the end to promote a centralized government, but today we live in such a system. The debate must be in that arena too, but like the 19th century liberals and 20th century socialists with the aim to supplant it with a better system. It is to promote a strategy for victory.
> Visionary is so much vague as it is largely absent from all too
> many discussions. Visionary as in possessing a unifying vision,
> as in being coherent and fully engaging.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by saying that the meaning is given
> by morality and ideology. Are these separate? Do they have
> common roots?
Morality- a code of ethics
Ideology- a morality applied in the society wherein it dwells
> > 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.
> >
>
> But how will simply assuming it and playing by its rules
> (presumably) in order to use its power result in anything much
> beyond perpetuating and strengthening it regardless of whether
> that really helps what we wish to see develop? Are you
> advocating more work within this system or something different?
Again I point to the actions of the 19th century liberals and the 20th century socialists. Think another system that is supported by a different current. Don't play by the rules, play by your rules.
> > > > 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.
> > > >
>
> But the very nature of who weilds power, what power is and so on
> is essential to the debate.
Yes, but it could also get problematic. Putting to much of the intellectual work on philosophic reasoning forces reduces the resources available for the spreading of the message thinking in on very short sighted tactical options. You end up in a discussion where you never get past the basic premisses, in order to reach the more interesting (and often harder questions).
> > > 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"
> >
>
> I have read her book and I find the analysis a bit lacking.
> Dynamism simply as lack of any particular control except that
> which dynamically emerges does not seem to me to be the end and
> be all of all that is good.
See it as a step in the discourse that further narrows it down.
> You seem to say that the first is thinking that technology alone
> is sufficient. That is certainly a valid point and a trap some
> some of the time fall into. But there are also voices here that
> continuously point out that technology alone is not enough. We
> still require a vision of where we are and where we wish to go
> if we are to actually navigate a future rather than being adrift
> clutching our techno-toys.
Actually it is my application of two old marxist terms to transhumanism and extropianism(right wing opportunism and left wing sectarianism). All radical movements see them, since they do not have the primacy of their ideas being part of the mainstream.
> That said though, news of technology breakthroughs is very
> important because these are tools that allow us to transcendent
> the current condition.
Yes, but HOW do you use them to do that, and what can you do with that under a certain set of circumstances.
> What do you see as the big conflict in terms of what it will
> require and what and how it might be resolved?
>
> I disagree with your cybergnostic statements generally. If we
> are *trans*humanists then we care deeply about and are committed
> to transcending human limitations of today. This is not merely
> a step AWAY by any means. But I agree it takes vision and acts
> of integration and creation to define what we are stepping
> toward.
>
> Constructive criticisms are welcome but broad slams against
> others does not serve your avowed purpose.
>
> What we are doing most certainly does have eschatological
> implications as we are designing the endtime of what was and
> creating our own heaven or hell that ourselves and our
> descendants will live with and in. I think it behooves us to
> think of what we are about that seriously.
>
> Technological innovations are paradoxical in that major
> innovations often come from one or a handful of researchers even
> if they take a much larger involvement to become common-place
> realities in the majorities lives. Much in technology is not
> that terribly gradual at all. The pace is accelerating. Big
> innovative leaps are fueled in large part by the quantity,
> quality and density of ideas and communication. The density is
> high today and getting higher. A very small set of further
> combinations, extrapolations and extended discoveries and
> integrations can have extremely large effect.
>
> That said I do agree that many of these discoveries and
> integrations will suffer if they are too privately conceived and
> pursued.
>
> It strikes me also that we spend much too little time conceiving
> of exactly what we want to create in terms of a living future
> and what steps we can take to bring it into being. We generally
> speak of a few technologies or of the wildest consequences and
> possibilities or circle around one another trading political and
> philosophical positioning signals. That clearly isn't enough.
>
> A reason some of us hesitate to involve ourselves with
> "political reality" is that it is largely an insane asylum.
> Personally I am "cybergnostic" enough to doubt seriously that
> unagumented human beings can come up with a feasible and
> rational morality from which to fashion a workable ethics and
> thus a rational politics.
Sorry but a workable ethics and a rational set of politics will be very, very, very, very hard to achieve. We can get steps closer though. And this could be as well done by unaugmented humans as by augmented- on the basis of what ideas they follow.
My instinct is that we must make room
> for the augmentation and transcendence of these limits in all
> ways practical including, yes even, the political. But
> especially we must envision what it is we wish to bring into
> being. And we must see the needs and implications implied by
> that vision and do what is required to acheive it. We cannot
> afford to become so steeped in today's politics that we have no
> time to vision what is beyond these limits and create it.
So, why does the market fluctuate? Is it because of it's inherent instability or because the Federal Reserve' s policy on currency is bad?
Why it question? Well, it is one of those important steps, yet another way of bettering the human condition. It is all too often assumed that the escatological superhuman is the only one that can really act. That is the main problem with cybergnosticism. There are no roads seen for bettering oneself, either today or the Jupiter brains of a far, far, far future. There are no steps in between. Transhumanism seems impossible to apply today, we just have to wait for the post- humans to resolve all the philosophical problems. That is how transhumanism devolves into being a "far- ethics", into the endless types of questions like "if a post-human met a jupiter brain what would be the right approach between them?". But we know so little about the future, especially of the future of transhumanism. The questions posed in "far- ethics" today might be completely irrelevant in that distant future, and that distant future might not even get realized at all since other questions of other philosophies became regarded as mor
e relevant.
Sorry to quote myself from a previous mail on this list, but I think that this adds to the debate:
"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."
> Sitting in front of my computer I can touch many more people
> than I can appear in person in front of. The right tools for
> the right age.
Indeed it is a fantastic tool! I can imagine how overjoyed people like Voltaire, Dalton, Montesquieu, Wilhelm von Humboldt and other would have been to have it (imagine sending a letter from Sweden to the United States in the early 19th century, scaaary). But, a computer is only a fantastic megaphone- what are you saying through it? And to what sections of society? It isn't the tool, it is the discourse, it is the ideas.
Are you a part of the public debate? Are you a heavy hitter in the public debate? Are the questions brought up by transhumanism seen as relevant? Important questions, indeed, that we all must pose to ourselves. The public debate is also quite beneficial for the ideology. Not perhaps by arguining with Jeremy Rifkin, Bill Joy and their ilks, but with debate with the groups that are similiar in ideology and outlook. And perhaps also with groups of a higher credibility. Often I get the impression that some think that our ideas are "nuttier" than they really are, this because they often start debates in circles where there are difficulties to understand the concept of abstract ideas to begin with. Even a "mainstream" ideology would suffer there. So it is the debate with the similarly minded intellectual that could be a vital judge and developer of the ideas.
Don't overestimate the tool per se either at this early stage, because it may also, when used improperly, promote laziness. You seem to reach out to many, you have a website, quite a few hits- victory is in sight. Well so does the raelians, the Lyndon Larouche movement and the Communist Marxist- Leninist Party (for the promotion of revolution) of Sweden. What is said thorough the megaphone, and how is it perceived? If what is said through the megaphone is very much remote from the from the current paradigm it will be discarded as irrelevant.
All too often I see the view that extropians somehow by themselves will achieve the realization of their ideas, in the movements present form. Sorry, but I think that is utterly impossible. Especially for a philosophy like extropianism it is necessary to take advantage of what F. A. Hayek called "the extended other" socially, economically and culturally. Basement ideologies don't tend to survive.
Are you spreading the views in the debates of high status? Are you promoting the views in the circles of intellectuals, outside the movement? Or has the stasist movement achieved hegemony in the debate? Yet another important set of questions.
This is yet another quote (sorry) but it links into the first answer:
"It may be that a technologically progressive, free society as we have know it in the two past centuries carries in itself the forces of its own destruction, that progress once achieved is taken for granted and ceases to be valued. There can be little doubt that in countries like the US and Europe the ideal of progress and freedom has today less real appeal for people in general.
I do not believe this. The descriptions made of the world and its nature, by intellectuals of the 19th and 20th century spread this pessism through their ideas. People may well follow old ideas, even if shown to be unpractical and immoral, because there are no alternatives present. So long as the people who over longer periods determine public opinion continue to be attracted by technocratic and/ or reactionary ideas, the trend will continue. If we are to avoid such a development, we must be able to offer a new programme which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free and progressive society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a transhumanist vision, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of stasism, but a truly transhumanist radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. The liberals of the 19th centur
y didn't aspire to a better kind of absolute monarchy, they aspired to a democratic system. The socialists of the 20th century didn't aspire to a better kind of liberalism, they aspired to a socialist system. And mind you, the technocrats and reactionnaries of today don't aspire to a status quo of the present situation. They intend to instill another kind of society (this one is all too dynamist to their tastes) guided by their ideas. And they sure know how to take action...
Like these other ideologies we are not interested in "a better kind" of today's situation. We are interested in an altogether better situation. Sure, it has some similarities with the present day, but it has its vast differences.
We need an intellectual movement who is prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who is willing to work for an ideal, however small may be the prospects of its early realisation. They must be men (and women, and other genders) who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realisation, however remote. The practical compromises that may be needed they must leave to the activist movement. How to instill this? Through ideological conscioussness and sound institutions. I hope that for instance Eudoxa will provide this, by making a career as a tranhumanist intellectual a feasible career move, but we need more of them. The stasists certainly have their institutions, and they are the one's flying business class (go figure).
Self- improvement, freedom, new opportunities and progress are ideals which may still arouse the imaginations of larger numbers, but a mere "reasonable freedom of self- improvement" (according to whose definition, by the way?) or a mere "relaxation of controls", or a "betterment" without defining what is "better" is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm. Mind you, just formulating a programme against "deathism" is too narrow in scope. The transhumanist project is much vaster.
The main lesson which the ideologically conscious transhumanist must learn form the successes of the 19th century liberals, and the 20th century socialists is that it was their courage to be visionary which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a transhumanist society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of dynamism are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of transhumanism at its best, the battle is not l
ost. It can be turned into victory. The intellectual revival of transhumanism must start. Will it be in time?"
Waldemar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:14 MST