Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:01:16 -0800
From: "Technotranscendence" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Heston Speech
>> I tend to look down on political theory ... and prefer to judge issues on
>> a case-by-case, situationalist (posthuman aesthetic) way.
>I don't look down on political philosophy, though I look down on certain
>wrong political philosophies.
No political theory is completely correct ... and all are formed out
of past events so might not be relevant in the future. If a theory cannot
be continually modified ... then it is dead meat. And if it is continually
modified, then it cannot ever be formulated ...... so why bother?
>By what means does one "to judge issues on a case-by-case, situationalist
>(posthuman aesthetic) way?" That would seem to mean to me an implicit,
>tacit political philosophy as opposed to an explicit one.
>The latter is easier to examine.
Fossils are easy to examine, this is true.
>(Also, I think such "case-by-case" thinking is just how
>the average person and politician approaches matters.
Of course it must be ..... politicians in practice find they cannot
stick to their cumbersome political theories.
>This is how we get
>people who say they are for freedom of expression, but against expression
>they or well established find offensive, such as people who against anyone
>making anti-Christian art.)
Not sure what you mean here, but certainly, a priori offence at
art is a 'political' theory rather than a case-by-case aesthetic judgement.
>I think also there is a difference between having a rule in this area and
>having principles. The latter are contextual and open-ended, the former
>neither. Most people I know don't think of the latter as an alternative to
>the former. They are suspicious of any systematic thinking. I'm not.:)
Principles or guide-lines are "soft rules" as opposed to "hard rules", sure.
I have deliberately never tried to compile any "Posthuman Principles"
though because I *do* distrust (or rather, see little point in) UNIVERSAL
catch-all linguistic formulations that are independent of any empirical test
or evidence. I suppose it is inevitable that we make up Posthuman
*suggestions* from time to time, but maybe shouldn't try to pretend that
such suggestions are immune from change and somehow true for all
time or permanent .. that would be self-defeating for a radical futurist
agenda! And if the extropian principles are updated every year, then
they cannot be very principled principles anyway ... far too short term ..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT