Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[SciFiNoir Lit] RealPolitik (was Re: Cloning as wish fulfillment)

Expand Messages
  • hesychastic
    ... I m not sure how answering that will meet your triune criteria for utility in life. But I d give more credit to Hugo Boss with the fly costumes sported by
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 31, 2003
      --- In SciFiNoir_Lit@yahoogroups.com, SEBARNES@a... wrote:
      >
      > > <modest snippage>

      > > > it would be perfectly natural for Nazis to believe that the
      > > > genetics are the most important part.

      > > and most unnatural, you might even say supernatural, for these
      > > most "scientific" and "analytical" of people to be placed under
      > > mass hypnosis and given a whole new style of costuming, pageant,
      > > spectacle and behaviour. Somebody really knew what they were
      > > doing when they masterminded the collective manipulation of the
      > > contemporary german psyche.

      > Not unnatural at all. People are generally controlled by their
      > emotions, not their logic, however much their logical minds might
      > protest. Like you say, someone knew what they were doing. Was
      > that Goebbels?

      I'm not sure how answering that will meet your triune criteria for
      utility in life. But I'd give more credit to Hugo Boss with the fly
      costumes sported by members of the Reich. (: Actually, Nazification
      of Germany began prior to the turn of the century and was
      systematically constructed by industrial combines. The look, feel,
      and zeitgeist of the reich was first inked by an obscure french
      alchemist named Rene Schwaller de Lubicz Milosz in a publication
      called les veilleurs, the watchers during the late teens/early 20's.

      > > > This discussion is still central in American politics:

      > > Overtly? or have the Shockley's and Bell Curvists receded from
      > > public view - largely discredited?

      > Largely present in the dialog between extremes of "left"
      > and "right".

      > > > nature versus nurture, the old "does essence proceed existence
      > > > or existence proceed essence" argument. This is a primary
      > > > difference between Left and Right.

      > > Good point, overstated to a compromising degree methinkst.

      > Nah. Just simplifying to make a point. There are almost always
      > exceptions to a given generalization--doesn't reduce their
      > usefulness in conversation, as long as one doesn't confuse the map
      > with the territory.

      Speaking in generalizations and cliches has other uses as well -
      depends on who seeks to profit by the form.

      http://syninfo.com/ian/PRIVATE/2003/07/21/2003072122263138.html

      > > There are a few more neurotype flavors in this stew than simple
      > > Left and simple Right.

      > Sure. And every additional dimension increases the conversational
      > complexity probably an order of magnitude. One can get bogged
      > down in that stuff.

      It it out of such discursive complexity that formerly ineffable
      notions get articulated and added to the realm of the "known" - the
      end game here being to pull up as much of what is unconscious into
      the light of discursive awareness...,

      > I'm pointing out a core difference in attitudes, the recognition
      > of which can often be used to predict what someone's position on
      > certain issues will be, once you identify where they're coming
      > from.

      "Attitudes"...., hmm..., "position" - seems like application of
      labels for the purpose of emotional evocation. In other words,
      leveraging terms systemically embedded in the collective psyche for
      the purpose of pushing emotional buttons.> >

      > > Which pov (neurotype) is more capable of introspection and
      > > adaptation to new information? Which neurotype is more
      > > suggestible? At the end of the day, responsiveness to madison
      > > avenue's hypnotic summons would seem to be a determining culturo-
      > > political factor.

      > Neither. Both sides contain rational people. Both sides
      > contain rigid morons. I think that the Right tends to be more
      > heirarchical and can shade toward racism if they're not careful.
      > The Left tends to be more morally relativistic, and can shade
      > toward a bit of communal anarchy. They probably both meet at the
      > point where both sides would love to control people's minds and
      > actions.

      > > > Needless to say, these points of view have very different
      > > > results when applied to something like racial politics. If
      > > > essence proceeds existence, then the current state of a person
      > > > or group is a damned good indicator of their inner worth.

      > > hmmmm...., do you sincerely believe that which polar end a person
      > > occupies is a more important driver than whether the person is
      > > capable of intellectual and emotional introspection and by
      > > extension, sympathize with others?

      > Actually, I think that the further a person is polarized in either
      > direction, the less balanced a human being they are likely to
      > be. Extending humanity to others is exactly what many highly-
      > politicized people do NOT do. In other words, they tend to take
      > the position that "if you disagree with me, you are either a knave
      > or a fool."

      My point to you is that neurology, not ideology is the determining
      factor. Some neurotypes simply cannot instantiate certain ideas.
      They're doing the best they can with what they have. For example,
      some people behave so as to maximize the dopaminergic effects of
      boredom. The become addicted to a certain neurochemical homeostasis
      and their behaviours are organized so as to maintain that chemical
      state.

      > Recognition that there are multiple views of the same mountain
      > tends to create people who are more philosophers than
      > politicians. Of course, that can be a trap as well, leading to a
      > person who sees all sides so well that he can't make a decision.

      Recognizing that there are different neurotypes in the human
      population who variously perform under the hegemonic norms of a
      given cultural system leads to a yet clearer understanding of what's
      actually going on in this society. Not only is this hypothesis
      testable, it can be proven in no uncertain terms.

      > To me, the key is balance in life. I have little interest in
      > politics, and little in philosophies without testable applications
      > to life. Any philosophical position will only be adopted into my
      > life if I can see how to apply it
      > to:
      > 1) My emotional health and family connections.
      > 2) My career and mental clarity
      > 3) My physical health and performance.

      > While there are doubtless many great ideas that don't meet this
      > test, I've found that any actions that simultaneously have
      > positive effect on all three of these arenas will never lead me
      > wrong.

      My dogma is different. I accept what you've said as a normative
      given.

      1. My religion is more materialistic than materialism
      2. Believe nothing, verify everything
      3. Always and everywhere, remember myself

      > I've known too many smart folks whose intelligence and
      > philosophical bent literally tied them into emotional knots.
      > The trick seems to be that they believe intellectual speculations
      > needn't have any connection to our lives.

      For me, the basic philosophical query is:
      > "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?" It seems to me that
      > those closest to the right answer have the truest map of reality,
      > and get the best results, measured in a minimum of the following
      > three arenas:
      > 1) Do they accomplish their career goals? And are they happy
      > when they do?
      > 2) Can they maintain a healthy relationship long enough to have
      > raised a child (whether they have children or not)
      > 3) Are they healthy animals physically? Could they hunt prey and
      > evade predators? Attract a desirable mate? Enjoy what they see
      > naked in the mirror?
      > Would they want to screw themselves?

      The idea of a good householder is more concrete and slightly less
      narcissistic, it holds that a man is successful who by his work can
      feed 20 others. He should also love his parents and be kind to
      animals.

      > Or, if they fall short in one of these arenas, are they on the
      > path of growth toward them? Do they admit they have these
      > hungers, or do they lie to themselves and others?

      > Never in my life have I met someone balanced in these three areas
      > who wasn't an interesting, growth-oriented, honest human being.
      > Never. Not once.

      You should get around more. Vigorous animals completely lacking in
      conscience are a dime a dozen. Worse still, most of them are
      completely incapable of producing anything materially useful to
      others. Their vanity typically precludes any objective assessment
      of their self-worth. Two things serve as sure fire remedies to this
      form of all-too-common narcissism. Serious illness and a severe
      public ass whooping. Mirrors of truth - if you will - by which the
      vanity of these erstwhile "masters of the world" are at least
      temporarily brought into humble communion with their manifold
      dependencies and material limitations.

      > So, while there are certainly other criteria for value, and tons
      > of people who genuinely eschew one or more of these arenas (monks
      > who don't have relationships, older people or disabled who can no
      > longer govern their bodies, etc.) I find myself pursuing only
      > those ways of knowing that will make me better in all three.
      > When I do this, I find that everythign else--including the
      > ability to "read" people with great accuracy--comes along for the
      > ride.

      I find that if I work consciously, like a man, and maintain scruple
      of conscience toward those who entrust me with their inner
      confidence, that my life tends to be enriched and my growth
      continues....,
    • Frofidemus@netscape.net
      Re: More of this see this Village Voice article re the three day gathering of the World Transhumanist Association conference last June, Opening debate,
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2003
        Re: More of this see this Village Voice article re the three day gathering of the World Transhumanist Association conference last June, Opening debate, "Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming Posthuman?"

        http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0331/baard.php

        Chris Hayden

        __________________________________________________________________
        McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
        Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
        http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

        Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!
        http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
      • hesychastic
        ... Chris, It is nothing less than the perenial clash of human neurotypes. Not to be mistaken as simple differences of opinion, but instead as the interplay
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2003
          --- In SciFiNoir_Lit@yahoogroups.com, Frofidemus@n... wrote:

          > Re: More of this see this Village Voice article re the three day
          > gathering of the World Transhumanist Association conference last
          > June, Opening debate, "Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming
          > Posthuman?"
          >
          > http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0331/baard.php

          Chris,

          It is nothing less than the perenial clash of human neurotypes. Not
          to be mistaken as simple differences of opinion, but instead as the
          interplay of varying and competing cognitive styles. This is a
          perfect example of the acting out of differing biological
          imperatives within our species. Isn't it kewl?

          We can see in a single scriptural artifact, the Bible, an ancient
          interplay among neurotypes respectively favoring glyphic, numero-
          phonetic, and simple phonetic communication systems - and each vying
          for hegemony - or at least stability - within the population.

          This is precisely why I posted the link to this document a few days
          ago. What does it tell you when the DoD's think tank is explicitly
          and openly pondering issues of governence raised by the convergence
          of genomics, computationalism, cryptography and new physics?

          http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1139/index.html

          particularly appedendix B.
          http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1139/MR1139.appb.pdf

          1. First, it tells you the level of contempt the general masses are
          held in because the document is hidden in plain sight.

          2. It tells you that political lines have been drawn around this
          issue for quite some time

          3. Note that it's the bio-luddite Fuckuyama who's conducting the
          symposium. Pretty funny, huh?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.