<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">That said, Damien talks of 'systematic' philosophy. Perhaps this is a third tier, somewhere above philosophical movement and plain old philosophy. I for one can cannot deny that without a core text or group of texts to do this work of defining, ordering, analysing and so on, it would be difficult to think of transhumanism as a systematic philosophy.</span></font>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">If this is what Damien meant, I can only reiterate my view that transhumanism is only an infant: it needs careful handling by parents with reasonably consistent views, an abundance of love (for each other, as well), and a single-minded devotion to the idea that it will be the most beautiful adult ever created.</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Best,</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Damian U.<br>
</span></font><br>
<div style="clear:both"></div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: udend05@aol.com<br>
To: extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<br>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:17<br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] transhumanist as a philosophy<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_3_12f3462a-d8d7-4131-b2a1-e3e382dc42a8">
<font color="black" size="2" face="arial"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">My first post, one of hopeful pacification:</span>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I can see where Damien is coming from on this issue as it is difficult to locate a 'core' text, or even a cluster of such texts. Most, if not all, philosophical movements have these core texts, so why doesn't transhumanism? I want to bring out the word 'movement' here: it is quite true that movements require such texts, established works that demonstrate, analyse and codfiy their beliefs. It would be a peculiar sort of movement that had no such thing, or only a loosely-assembled group of short works for people to point to in support of their vews. It would, I suppose, be like a Christian suggesting they based their entire beliefs on the book of Leviticus and a snippet of the Gospel of John. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nevertheless, to argue that for this reason alone transhumanism does not amount to a philosophy seems to be little more than a quibble. When I tell people that I hold the view that it is desirable for us to use technology to increase our abilities (in all sorts of ways which I needn't list here), I am taking an essentially philosophical stance. Why so? My statement has a normative flavour, for a start: it is a position I maintain, and which I support with all sorts of arguments, ethical, political, medical and so on. I will defend the view against its detractors and point to articles by other thinkers in support of my views (though I may not point to any single or group of core texts - yet!). So far, so philosophical.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">That word 'yet' seems important. Transhumanism is a young philosophy (oops - I mean, set of loosely related thoughts) and has to go a long way before people can say they belong to the philosophical 'movement' of transhumanism. But they can certainly say that their philosophy is that of transhumanism.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In any case, what else would you call it? Outlook? View? Or some new phrase we haven't thought of yet? Whatever, if as I maintain is the case, there is a difference between a philosophy and a philosophical movement, then transhumanism is certainly the one, if not quite yet the fully matured other. What I see Natasha, Max, Kurzweil, Bostrom, Sanders and all the rest as doing is helping it to grow into adulthood.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Damian.<br>
</span>
<div><br>
<div style="clear:both"></div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Damien Broderick <<a href="mailto:thespike@satx.rr.com">thespike@satx.rr.com</a>><br>
To: 'ExI chat list' <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>><br>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 2:03<br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] transhumanist as a philosophy<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_dd256bb9-ffb5-44d3-a27e-1fc2ee0ff620" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
So I passed along the query to philosopher Russell Blackford, of JET,
who replies (and allows me to repost): <br>
====================== <br>
<br>
What core texts? Tranhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement,
but not a philosophical system as far as I can see. There may well be
philosophical systems associated with it (Max's, perhaps), but if so
they're not generally accepted within the movement. I don't see any body
of core texts that everyone quotes, let alone a body of what could be
called core *philosophical* texts. Some people quote James's book, of
course, and people will often position themselves by referring to Nick
Bostrom's history of transhumanism. Simon Young's book gets quoted a
lot, but not by transhumanists. Actual transhumanists all seem to hate
it.... All I really see is ferment and debate around some key ideas,
e.g. of the posthuman. But we don't agree about stuff like the
Singularity, and a key idea or two doesn't add up to a system or a
philosophy. <br>
<br>
The big special issues of JET that we published a year or two back are
arguably the best intellectual resource that exists, and they should be
referred to, but I don't see any common philosophical system there.
Likewise for the special issue of The Global Spiral that Natasha edited
two years ago - probably a fair bit of commonality on that occasion,
since Natasha chose and invited fairly like-minded contributors, but not
a system. It's worth looking at to see people who are pretty informed,
including Max and Natasha, trying to correct a batch of fairly
ill-informed critiques. I expect the transhumanist reader that Max and
Natasha are putting together will be the same - lots of ideas, lots of
ferment. <br>
<br>
Btw, I don't think transhumanism is any the worse for this. <br>
<br>
Cheers, <br>
<br>
R <br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" <<a>thespike@satx.rr.com</a>> <br>
To: "ExI chat list" <<a>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> <br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:01 AM <br>
Subject: Re: [ExI] transhumanist as a philosophy <br>
<br>
> On 6/21/2010 4:15 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: <br>
> <br>
>> Transhumanism*the philosophy* is still developing - Bostrom, Sandberg, <br>
>> More, have all published papers outlining ideas, and as Natasha said <br>
>> Extropy had a good variety of papers. Is there a core summation of these <br>
>> currently in print or readily accessible? I don't think so <br>
> <br>
> Right, that's my point. <br>
> <br>
>> which is why "The Transhumanist Reader" has a handy gap in the market it <br>
>> can fill. <br>
> <br>
> Indeed. It should be a good start. <br>
> <br>
>> I suppose the best way to check what the core texts are from a <br>
>> philosophical point of view would be to ask those nice people at the <br>
>> Journal of Evolution and Technology to check the references quoted in <br>
>> their journal <br>
> <br>
> My good mate Dr. Dr. Russell Blackford is the current JET editor, and I've <br>
> copied some of this discussion to him but haven't heard back yet. <br>
> <br>
> Damien Broderick <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
extropy-chat mailing list <br>
<a>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a> <br>
<a>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a> <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</font>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_3_12f3462a-d8d7-4131-b2a1-e3e382dc42a8 -->
<div id="AOLMsgPart_4_12f3462a-d8d7-4131-b2a1-e3e382dc42a8" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_4_12f3462a-d8d7-4131-b2a1-e3e382dc42a8 -->
</div>
</div>
</font>