<html>
<body>
At 04:39 PM 7/4/2006, Samantha wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> What motivates the desire
to overcoming limitations, if not a need to<br>
> survive the limitations?<br><br>
To have life more abundantly.<br><br>
> Are religious practices and rituals a means to help people
survive <br>
> current<br>
> conditions, both mental and physical?<br><br>
This is only part of what they are though. There is a strong
<br>
"impulse" to imagining a radically better world. There is
an <br>
"impulse" to self/world transformation in the direction that
is <br>
perceived as better. It does not appear to me that all of this
is <br>
subsumed under mere survival.</blockquote><br>
I have stretched the definition of survival. <br><br>
After stating that survival was the impulse, days later (05/25/06) I
wrote to the person and stated that survival was not the
impulse:<br><br>
"I was incorrect when I stated that the impulse behind transhumanism
is 'survival.' Survival is necessary in achieving extended life
spans; however, it is only one of many desired outcomes of this
transnational cultural movement.<br>
<br>
"More accurately, the impulse behind transhumanism is the desire to
“improve” the human condition through the beneficial use of
technology. This aspiration includes, on an individual scope,
increased cognitive capacity, amplified sensory ability, heightened
awareness, and enhanced physical attributes. On the larger span of
humanity, developing an 'improved' human condition would be the designing
and implementing of systematic methods to explore/investigate the
socio-political-economic domains which affect and are affected by the
scientific-technological-arts-environmental domains."<br><br>
Then, after reading Spencer, I resumed my original thought that survival
is the key impulse. The other impulses are secondary.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> Is art a means to overcome
(survive)<br>
> mundacity or a repetitious-constant-state of life by creating
<br>
> alterative<br>
> ways of seeing the world? Is that ancient drive you refer
to <br>
> motivated by<br>
> a need to survive? Was the first technology (tool) built
to <br>
> protect or<br>
> kill in order to survive?<br>
><br>
> What is the impulse behind survival?<br><br>
This does not seem to me to be the question or part of the question
<br>
you originally asked.</blockquote><br>
Questions lead to more questions and different literary tracks.
It's the only way to discover.<br><br>
Natasha<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Cultural Strategist - Designer
<dd>President, <a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy Institute</a>
<dd>Member, <a href="http://www.profuturists.com/">Association of
Professional Futurists</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>