[ExI] [ieet] Singularity - Non-Gender Specific

natasha at natasha.cc natasha at natasha.cc
Tue Sep 29 22:00:49 UTC 2009

Quoting Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:

> On 9/29/2009 4:03 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>>> You must be saying something
>>> deeper than that.
>> Far deeper, yes. I think my original post alludes to this.
> I didn't see there an answer to:
> Can you give some examples of phallic singularitarianism? What
> currently is "gender specific in its promotion"?

Visually, the camera angle of men - mostely from the bottom up to  
enlarge the form/figure. I think that both the Singularity Institute  
and University are too focused on fast-track futurism rather than  
social issues as well as human, transhuman, posthuman issues.  Not TED  
enough, yet not scholary enough either.

> I do see, and agree with, your comment that "cyborg" has been
> appropriated by feminist and other poststructuralist theorists. What's
> the equivalent you have in mind?

The equivalent I have in mind is the chrysalis that I mentioned.  I  
never favored Haraway's interpretation of cyborg (however politically  
incorrect it is to say this, especially in my discipline), and I have  
longed for its meaning as a self-regulatory system for existing in  
non-earth environments.  But because it was so male-oriented (what is  
often referred to as white male-centric), Haraway's appropriation of  
cyborg was a refreshing alternative for many in theory, social  
sciences, liberal arts, rhetoric, gay and lesbian studies, etc.

It seems plausible that because the current Singularity organizations  
do not approach the Singularity through a diverse spectra of  
intellectuals and visionaries, it too could find itself confiscated by  
feminists, or whomever, and reworked to fit its social needs.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list