Damien Broderick wrote:
> [Holding the flesh in contempt]
> I don't. Most people don't. It's pissing in the wind to convey this
> impression inadvertently (unless of course you agree with Machine and
> actually do `hold the flesh in contempt', a position I regard as either
> adolescent angst/posturing or, ahem, close to psychotic).
When the assumed default position is to elevate all things biological to 'spiritual' status, showing a little contempt is the only (fast) way to show that you have no emotional attachment to biology. Perhaps we shouldn't use the term 'meat' in our press releases but in the transhuman/extropian community it serves the purpose of reinforcing our values by magnifying the differences between (current) mainstream values and our own.
> You might as well routinely refer to our bodies as `shit-containers',
> which is also true in a limited degree. Avoiding such narrow and arguably
> deformed characteristations isn't `euphemism', it's being adult, as well
> as showing sensitivity to the opinions of those we wish to persuade of an
> enhanced, not constricted, view of personhood as science starts to rewrite
> humanity into transhumanity and then posthumanity. IMO.
And when they discover that they were shit-containers all along...?
Damien also wrote:
> > So then, Mr Broderick
>
> No need to be formal, Bryan, we're all pals here. But if the impulse to
> formality overwhelms you, that's Dr Broderick.
Sir, yes sir.
> > a flurry of God-knows-what...?
>
> I'd rather leave `God' out of it, as well as `meat'.
How about 'generic omnipotent being'? Or perhaps the saying should be, "a god knows what" (or more correctly, "a god would know what" but let's not get carried away).
BM
[I'm now splitting my posts into (a) the main argument/subject and (b) the peripheral stuff that I for whatever reason feel the need to say. Any posts that are completely categorised as (b) will make their way into the trash. In theory this should reduce the amount of crap I post.]