[ExI] Theories of Change & Transhumanism
thespike at satx.rr.com
Wed Jun 17 17:42:53 UTC 2009
At 05:51 PM 6/16/2009 -0500, I wrote:
>>Does anyone have a view on this observation?
>Yes. It's incredibly stupid.
That was jumping the gun, probably. I don't know what the amazingly
prolific (and apparently rather self-important) Professor Andy Miah
wrote in his essay, nor what his presumptions are:
In this kind of discourse, terminology can be absurdly paradoxical
and misleading. Several decades ago, Foucault and Althusser and other
created a lot of pointless mischief (I believe) by calling their
approach "antihumanism" (and speaking of the imminent "death of Man")
when what they really meant was just something like "after-humanism"
When people on this list speak of "posthumans" it's usually to
indicate some anticipated future state where modifications have
changed and enhanced humankind very radically, rather as evolutionary
adaptations modified proto-humans. The recent fad of philosophers and
critical theorists dubbing themselves posthumanists seems
inconsistent with this usage, so repudiating their statements as if
they were speaking for us as transhumanists is probably missing the
point and only confusing things.
And as Stefano usefully noted, there's a lot of discourse in European
forums that seems to have independently coined this term (by
reference to "postmodern" and "poststructural", I assume), and it
looks as if it would be fairly misleading to conflate all these uses.
More information about the extropy-chat