[ExI] Question from a neophyte

[Natasha Vita-More]

Your post is overtly pedantic and barks up the wrong tree by lecturing to
the choir.  You don't need to do that here - do it  on the WTA list if you
want to blast watered-down transhumanism.


Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:33 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Question from a neophyte

I do, indeed, favor unPCness. Our world is becoming too much of a PC
nanny-state benevolent dictatorship, and this disturbing trend must be
countered with some healthy unPCness.

As far as bridges are concerned: I am in favor of building bridges, but they
must be built from both sides. Unilaterally building a bridge is always seen
as a weakness from the other side, which replies with more and more, less
and less reasonable demands. Look at those pathetic ex-transhumanists who
have tried to build bridges, and then have been forced into renouncing
transhumanism.

No, I say we continue to affirm the disruptive, promethean, radical and
revolutionary vision of transhumanism, of which this list has been the main,
the best, and for many years the only example. I want transhumanism to
become a mass movement -- but it must remain transhumanism. We want to win
minds and hearts by kicking ass, not by kissing it.

G.

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:54 PM,  <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> What is quite confusing to me is to have to defend my views concerning 
> the future human after I years in this area and have written, lectured 
> and designed a concept for a future human which is not sequestered to 
> a meat body (but does not denounce *a* body) and in fact, suggests 
> multiple shapes and substrates with which to house, if you will, 
> identity for the extension of personal identity over time and space.
>
> Be it that I do not favor Moravec specific design; it does not mean 
> that I am blind to the well-known transhumanist far future 
> noosphere-istic type environment that we have long discussed.
>
> Morphological Freedom?
>  
> hrart.wordpress.com/.../natasha-vita-more-us-?morphological-freedom?-4
> -photographs-2008-wwwnatashacc/ , 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_freedom , 
> www.natasha.cc/designwar.pdf
>
> Anyway, the issue seems to be socio-political. From what I understand, 
> and I could be wrong, Giulio actively favors being politically 
> incorrect.   As an artist, I have been pretty much politically 
> incorrect most my life! :-) and would rather build bridges these days 
> by just trying to be as correct as possible (given my human intellect 
> which is not much to write about) and by being kind-hearted.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
>
> Quoting Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>:
>
>> I certainly agree that Moravec is not the only entry point. But for 
>> me, he is one of the main entry points. Transhumanism is not _only_, 
>> but _also_ about robots and bush people. As a philosophical position, 
>> we are for self ownership and morphological freedom, the freedom to 
>> modify one's body at will. I interpret morphological freedom in its 
>> widest sense, inclusive of escaping biology, or living as pure 
>> software.
>>
>> Of course these options will become available much later than the 
>> options, being developed, for improving our biological bodies by 
>> biotechnology. But for me the ultimate objective is, to use now 
>> politically incorrect words, to escape the meat.
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat