[extropy-chat] PR: Lanier trashing >Hism again...

[nvitamore at austin.rr.com]

> > Jaron is showing systems of behavior of someone who had once been 
> > recognized as an original thinkers and who got stuck in his own genre. 
> > 
> > Some futurist thinkers advance at one point in their lives and then get 
> > rigid and become irrationally prejudiced about others whose ideas
branch 
> > out further than their own. 
> > 
>[examples snipped] 
> 
>Problem identified. How do we avoid it? Examples of particular 
>dangers? How do we self-diagnose, and how do we solve it? 

Good.  I like the proactive approach.

Let's discuss this.  (I am using "you" as all of us, not any specific
person.)

I think an active way to avoid becoming stuck is to have a solid base of
friends/colleagues who take the time to observe and suggest. These people
will help spot us when we develop characteristics of rigid thinking.  They
do not let you get away with BS, but care enough about us or our work to
alert us to the behavior and also help us avoid it.

Most people choose friends who either make them feel good or make them feel
bad.  Either choice is not advantageous if the motive is not to help us.  
But, herein, we have to tell our friends to be honest with us because most
of us get a bit uneasy about telling each other what we really think.

Max and I have discussed this a lot and we agree that transhumanism needs
clear headed, critical thinkers who are advocates of reason and will speak
up and explore all sides of an issue.  We need what I can "spotters"
(gymnastic term) to both assist us and help us over the bar.  Often time we
are hooraying each other rather than working to consider the consequences,
the effects, how others are affected, and where we are headed.**

Warning:  These same people are not the ones who have an irrational motive
but assert themselves as being objective.  

[An aside:  We have to leave ourselves and our work open to critique.  In
the art world this is a common practice. We artists critique each other's
work and we are very open and honest about it.  It is a skill we develop
and learn how to administer with finesse as well as well-versed references
and research about why we form an opinion in the critiquing process.  Film
critics critique films, but they get off on being "personalities" or
developing a "reputation" that reflects themselves rather than, for the
most part, being true critical thinkers.]

So, the first thing we need to do is practice the art of critical
assessment and also develop the wherewithal to accept objective critiquing.

(Perhaps on an adjacent thread we could discuss specific issues in
transhumanism where critiquing would be wise and what
ideas/projects/people/organizations/ideas, etc. would be well served by
allowing themselves to be critiqued.)

2.  The second suggestion is to work to develop a ** framework for
transhumanism (which I have started, vis a vis my talk at TV05), and a
series of ** scenarios (which I would love to work on with anyone!).

But this does not have to be so expansive.  It can be done for each person
or his/her organization or company.

3.  A third suggestion is to use the TransColloquium which was not
supported by many organizations or people but which I think can still serve
a substantial purpose for transhumanism.

The above are early morning thoughts which need to be expanded upon.

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More










--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .