> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:13:29 -0400
> From: Mike Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> > From: Steve Nichols
> > To: email@example.com
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 11:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> > >
> > > Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:58:08 -0400
> > > From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> > >
> > > First of all, let's get one thing completely straight. The term
> > > "transhuman" is sometimes used as if it meant "transhumanist", which I
> > > object to, but is nonetheless an existing usage. The term "posthuman"
> > > absolutely reserved for genuine posthuman entities. You can be a
> > > posthumanist, but not a posthuman.
> > Who are you to tell ME what I can or cannot be! I am not a "human" but
> > am "after" (post-) that species, although I acknowledge my human
> The consensus of transhumanists is that not only are transhumans only
> just on the verge of developing, posthumans do not exist and will not
> exist for a while yet.
But self-described "Transhumanists" are a minute fraction of the population,
and why should I pay any attention to your definistions when my are closer
to mainstream and dictionary definitions "post-human" = "after-human."
We collectively spent the whole of the C20th, and much of the C19th
following Darwin's publications and Blavatsky's introduction of the
term "post-human" going through a mental shift from the traditional
human world view to the current view that we are substantial different
from our forebears ... in lifestyle, knowledge, physically, and even DNA!
Furthermore, if you still have a human DNA
> pattern, you are still quite human.
I am sure my DNA differs from yours. I suppose we could argue
about amounts of variation ... but am not sure that helps us, just
gets the debate bogged down in boring and regressive eugenics &c.
> Continuing to use such a term for yourself in violation of consensus
> opinion on the matter only impunges your credibility toward the
> 'fruitcake' end of the scale.
I'm afraid all of us on this list (particularly the Californians amongst
have to carry that burden sometimes. This is a price paid by all
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:08:42 -0700
> From: BigBooster <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> At 12:15 AM 10/16/2001 +0100, "Steve Nichols" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >My "brand" of post-human philosophy has always stressed
> >the priority of the mental over the material .... the world is
> >located in experience more than the other way about. Evolution
> >is primarily about survival ..... if we can make things better then
> >great, but the bottom line is not to endanger our collective and
> >individual existence. Delusional systems from the archaic past
> >are a direct threat to inhabitants of this planet, and technology
> >by itself will not eradicate supernaturalist spouting money-spinning
> >institutions such as the Vatican, Mormons, Baptists, Islam &c.
> What distinguishes your "posthuman politics" from
> primitive/backward human politics? -- which in my
> view is characterized by:
> (1) Some people using fraud and violence/threat of
> violence (coercion) to impose their will upon others;
> (2) Sucker-victims hallucinating some of the noises
> and scribbles emanating from the mouths and pens
> of primitive political cheaters as "the law" (so-called).
> See "Clear-Your-Mind Reports"
> How is your "posthuman politics" qualitatively different
> from primitive/backward Vatican, Mormons, Baptists,
> Islam &c?
> Frederick Mann
The notion that we have evolved from human to the
next level allows us to define ourselves "beyond" the
human-era categories such as "Asian", "Japanese,"
"Shinto," "Communist" or whatever. This is an
advance. The important distinction becomes "human
or posthuman" not "black or Caucasian", "Christian or
Hindu" or whatever.
(1) Agree fully against violence & killing. Our
main thrust is philosophical, posthuman evolution
is an idea, of benefit to many humans undoubtedly,
but not an idea demanding violent coercion .... or
of any threats "on leaving" such as Muslims who
might be killed if they renounce Islam, Freemasons
who might be ritually castrated or whatever, or even
like Scientologists who are subjects to visits and cult
See http://www.multi.co.uk/identity.htm for key information.
(2) I do think that most folks operate in a state of trance
pretty much all the time, and reverse hypnosis/ MVT or some
other enlightenment system is a good thing. But unlike mind-
control systems, I think we should aim for full debate and full
information ..... if MVT isn't true, the process of discovering
why this might be the case is of the utmost importantance ...
whereas the bible-believer has a necessarily closed mind-set.
You cannot rewrite the bible or Koran, not empirically test
its claims. The archaic texts are fossilised in time, and useless as
sources of unfolding and universal truth for that reason.
See http://www.multi.co.uk/schedule.htm for info on becoming
UPGRADED to posthuman and on MVT therapy. Regards
the "Law" this is a social convenience and is interpreted for
pragmatic reasons ... it is an aspect of politics ... to have any
input into the debates about changing various Laws we have
to engage with adversaries in political debates and elections.
Hope this answers your various questions?
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:46:12 -0400
> From: Dan Clemmensen <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> Steve Nichols wrote:
> >>Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:17:01 -0400
> >>From: Dan Clemmensen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >>Subject: Re: Posthuman Politics
> > I find the whole Singularity debate on a par with the
> > milleniumists and Y2K thing, except it is more of a moveable
> > feast so true believers have more squirming room when it fails
> > to happen.
> OK, what is your projection for human existence in 2020?
Hopefully everyone will mostly understand MVT by then and will
be benefitting from having adopted post- or neohuman identites
that better reflect their natures than the previous delusion that they
> > Technology itself has taken a mega-knock when the world's
> > most technologically advanced nation is bashed by a few men
> > armed just with penknifes.
> Armed with 757s. This is an extreme example of the power
> multiplier that technology gives the individual. It's
> scary, but it's not a step backward away from technology.
> Rather, and more frighteningly, it's a glimpse of what
> happens when technology becomes more accessible to anyone
> who really wants it.
Yes, the example does a highlight this danger with technology.
A nuclear powerstations might be exploded by someone with
TNT .... but you cannot say the guy with the TNT had control
of nuclear technology, just TNT technology .....
> You are not human? Your philosophy does not appear to be post-humanist
> to me, since humans have been attempting to "transcend" by emphasizing
> the mental over the material for thousands of years, without
> reproducible success.
Actually I am careful never to describe myself as "posthumanist" since
I agree with the broad thrust of humanist philosophy.
The difference is that I claim to have solved the mind-body problem
by overcoming Leibnitz and Spinoza's objections to Descartes by
MVT. The Materialist vs Idealist debate is thus subject to an
The difference between the singulatarian
> projections and earlier predictions is that the other predictions
> are not consistent with any particular trend lines, but depend on
> faith. I include the millenialists and the whackier Y2K people in
> this category, along with many religious people. Please note that the
> non-whacko Y2K folks spent hundreds of millions of dollars finding and
> fixing real computer bugs, some of which really could have caused
> problems, so Y2K was a real problem.
I follow the singularity idea with some interest, but am not
personally convinced by the case. Sure Y2K had a basis in
fact ..... my point is that the case was overstated, and became
subject to psychological panic and disproportionate response.
Posthuman Organisation www.multi.co.uk/identity.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT