Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:01:18 -0500
From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Heston Speech
Neal Blaikie wrote:
> Steve Nichols wrote:
> > I tend to look down on political theory ... and prefer to judge issues
> > a case-by-case, situationalist (posthuman aesthetic) way.
> Thanks for making this distinction, Steve. IMHO a very healthy approach.
>Since a) there are no posthumans,
Nonsense, I have been post-human since the early 1980's, and Blavatsky,
Mather's and other were 'more-than-human' back in the C19th.
and b) the singularity has not >occurred,
Hopefully, and probably, never will. Wot a bunch of speculation and dogma.
Singularity is either the centre of a black hole, or a Leibnitzean monad as
far as I am concerned ... or has anyone demonstrated another kind?
c) nobody can make any rational claim as to what 'posthuman
>aesthetic' is, nor is situationalism in any way extropic.
Sure, claims are meaningless. It is down to us to forge the new aesthetics,
and who says it should be a single standard? Situationalism/ survivalism/
and pragmatism are an alternative to theory-laden, dogmatic approaches.
It is best to stay flexible, react to the presenting realities without
out any of the big picture because of ideological blinkers (extropic
or otherwise). Why restrict yourself and lock-in to some dogma, even if
a futurist/ progressive one? Evolution is about SURVIVAL mainly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT