<html>
<body>
At 10:43 AM 5/5/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
"nvitamore@austin.rr.com" <nvitamore@austin.rr.com>
wrote:<br><br>
> While I was away at a conference there was some discussion
about<br>
> posthumans and posthumanism. In my research in preparing my paper
on<br>
> BioArt, many of the theoreticians and curators I spoke with
referred<br>
> to the posthuman and discounted the transhuman (including isms).
I<br>
> have known for some time that there is an academic dismissing
of<br>
> transhumanism and an embracing of posthumanism, in large part due
to<br>
> Kathryn Hayles book which does not cover transhumanism. This
book<br>
> also does not mention Max's published article "On Becoming
Posthuman"<br>
> and also importantly Robert Peppernell who wrote "The
Posthuman<br>
> Condition." I know that UK professors are annoyed at Hayles'
<br>
> borrowing ideas from Pepperell and not recognizing him.<br>
> <br>
> Many of the reasons for this and I'd like to discuss it with you
all<br>
> in this thread. First I'd like to hear your thoughts if you
have<br>
> any.<br><br>
Two reasons i can think of:<br><br>
1) Ignorance of tanshumanism. Maybe they think of transhumanism as<br>
something separate from the means to achieve a posthuman state. A lot
of<br>
bizzarre-sounding ideas go under the banner of
transhumanism.</blockquote><br>
Yes, this may be true to a degree. Although the ideas of
transhumanism are not bizarre to anyone who thinks about the future
outside academic and "futurist" business models. These
domains are stiff and often rigid, no matter how much they assume they
are thinking about the future. From first hand experience,
academics are still in the postmodernism world and business folks are
stuck in Future Studies which lacks knowledge about evolutionary ideas in
can and will affect humanity.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">2) Distancing themselves from
the above-mentioned bizarre ideas, while<br>
still being able to talk about the future consequences.</blockquote><br>
Yes. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">When these academics talk about
posthumans, do they see them as existing<br>
in some remote future, or in the next 20 years?</blockquote><br>
Within a considered "assumable" future 50 years. But they
are not multi-tracking for the most part and are hedging their bets with
the domains that are tangible to them. There is fluent thinking in
cybernetics, social change, philosophy, emergent technologies, but the
framing of these areas are within staying "human" but being
posthuman through machines and transference of identity or mind agents
into other realities. There is concern about Hans Moravec, but
almost as a joystick because Moravec is such a sweetheart and well liked
that his ideas are not really truly taken seriously for the enormous
potential they have in affecting the human. So, the assumptive
thinking is that machines will not become more intelligent than humans
and science fiction is okay to battle if one can be a liberal humanist
and literary provocateur by using all sorts of big words and references,
which is essential for academic writing (although some transhumanist have
gotten away with not doing this.)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Oh, i just thought of another
one:<br>
3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like
'postmodern'.<br>
the last thing they want is to think it actually means something
real.</blockquote><br>
Haha. Could be, but I think that Hayles is very well-versed in her
area of knowledge, but could be true.<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>PhD Candidate,
<a href="http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/">Planetary
</a><a href="http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/">Collegium</a>
<dd><a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts &
Culture</a>
<dd><a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy Institute</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>