Re: Heston Speech

From: Michael Lorrey (
Date: Sat Feb 24 2001 - 10:39:40 MST

Steve Nichols wrote:
> From: Michael Lorrey <>
> Subject: Re: Heston Speech>
> Neal Blaikie wrote:
> > Steve Nichols wrote:
> > > I tend to look down on political theory ... and prefer to judge issues
> > > on 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 many socialists have been calling themselves 'anarchists' since
Kruschev's speech, or since the fall of the USSR. Saying something
doesn't make it so, nor does inventing our own definitions for words.

> 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?

By definition, posthumans will not exist until the singularity occurs,
so either you should be for the singularity occuring so that you might
one day call yourself posthuman, or else stop claiming to be post human.

> 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
> filtering
> 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.

Rejecting situationalism does not require dogman. It only requires
principle. In our case, the Extropian principles are quite fine, and are
not dogmatic, nor are they situationalist.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT