[SciFiNoir Lit] RealPolitik (was Re: Cloning as wish fulfillment)
- --- In SciFiNoir_Lit@yahoogroups.com, SEBARNES@a... wrote:
>I'm not sure how answering that will meet your triune criteria for
> > <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?
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:Speaking in generalizations and cliches has other uses as well -
> > 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.
depends on who seeks to profit by the form.
> > There are a few more neurotype flavors in this stew than simpleIt it out of such discursive complexity that formerly ineffable
> > 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.
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"Attitudes"...., hmm..., "position" - seems like application of
> of which can often be used to predict what someone's position on
> certain issues will be, once you identify where they're coming
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 andMy point to you is that neurology, not ideology is the determining
> > 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
> > > 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."
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
> Recognition that there are multiple views of the same mountainRecognizing that there are different neurotypes in the human
> 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.
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 inMy dogma is different. I accept what you've said as a normative
> 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
> 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
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 andFor me, the basic philosophical query is:
> 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.
> "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?" It seems to me thatThe idea of a good householder is more concrete and slightly less
> 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?
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
> Or, if they fall short in one of these arenas, are they on theYou should get around more. Vigorous animals completely lacking in
> 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.
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 tonsI find that if I work consciously, like a man, and maintain scruple
> 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
of conscience toward those who entrust me with their inner
confidence, that my life tends to be enriched and my growth
- 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?"
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!
- --- In SciFiNoir_Lit@yahoogroups.com, Frofidemus@n... wrote:
> Re: More of this see this Village Voice article re the three dayChris,
> gathering of the World Transhumanist Association conference last
> June, Opening debate, "Should Humans Welcome or Resist Becoming
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?
particularly appedendix B.
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?