I'm not talking about transhumanism - which might be critiqued as: Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[40] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[41] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics (Wiki)
but about identifying why we have made some progress but not very much towards secure living in freedom. I suspect we are much less distinct from animals than in Gabby's religious view, much less involved in 'logical' argument than we know (and generally have less training in it than soccer) and may be disabled from democracy by a technology we could fix (imperfectly would do) if we could really debate what it is. On 17 Jan, 17:48, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd add the situation is so complex even a metaphor like driving a car > is replete with problems - car driving is part of planet burning, I > once built a kit car but this doesn't make me a 'better' driver than > Stirling Moss, cars kill etc. > > Much decision-making is already automated by technology in the sense > of the term I mean. High frequency trading is an example and is very > much subject to cheating and unfair advantage by those in control of > the technology (the general scam is front-running). > > Profit and loss decision-making across the world leaves out many items > most of us would consider vital such as the atrocities perpetrated on > the lives of people around mines - etc. ad nauseum - these > 'externalities' could be subject to the accounting processes. > > I'm only suggesting we can get beyond moral wittering - initially in > thought experiment - and maybe find new ground that would be > actionable rather than chattering-class stuff. In the current > technology those in control take huge rents and promise trickle down. > Nearly all of us despise centralised control as in the Sino-Soviet > experiments (probably based on the Domesday Book) - yet 'money' > centralises. I often think leaving democracy to argument is like > being told we can put up ourselves against Manchester United and let > football decide out fate! {We might turn up with 13 decent amateurs > and beat them by changing the goal-posts to rugby league football - or > Allan might keep his shotgun on them while rigs walked in our winning > goals}. > > Shotgun (Whilst I liked rigs' metaphor) and god-contest threats seem a > lot more violent than the logicians to me at this point. > > On 17 Jan, 16:47, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I rode shotgun in our last civil war Gabby. I see little in 'god > > arguments' other than chronic factionalism and can no longer laugh at > > Lutherian rants emanating from Belfast. There is something else in > > religion and I don't agree with those like Dawkins who make fortunes > > replacing it with science that may as well be 'Latin mass' in general > > understanding. I'd be happy enough to ride in this context with Allan > > against the road agents - though I for one would need comfortable > > suspension and I don't travel well. > > > God clearly doesn't work once in factional human hands - like Gabby I > > prefer direct appeal to him/her/it - but even Protestantism is led, > > collective and so on. Quite how the Protestant tossers who started > > shooting into Catholic gatherings (and so on) in Northern Ireland > > could justify themselves with a loving god I don't know- though I'm > > sure rationalisation was part of it. I much prefer agnosticism on > > what we don't know to the zealot - and admissions we don't know over > > 'there is no alternative zeal'. As to what science is, I prefer > > admission it is replete with values, religion, manic belief and so on, > > done by social animals, already present in a world before humans and > > in subjective human reflection on the past. The whole notion of > > science as 'value free' is a nonsense and has origin in battles in > > which others held and used the instruments of torture to promote their > > control fraud. I have no intention of being sent out, as a previous > > and dubiously historical figure with a sling-shot against god-made- > > Goliath. > > > To some extent, if we could break the 'argument code' and produce a > > technology that made decision obvious, we would break the political > > power complex. The fear is of some Frankenstein nightmare worse than > > what we have now. Habermas sought to extirpate (root out) ideology > > and form an ideal-type speech situation in which only Reason would > > decide (Reason in my take is a 'technology'). He was scoffed at as > > 'the Professor' by postmodernists as his 'system' would inevitably be > > totalising - and hadn't we had enough totalising with the Nazis? I > > think all sides of this argument are little more than academic guff. > > > I wonder whether there is a better starting point in recognising most > > people are hopeless in argument and whether we might be better placed > > as individuals if technology could do more of the argument for us as, > > say, a car can be driven. > > > On 17 Jan, 12:10, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry for being late here. Let me go back to your question, Allan, whether > > > our counting system is bigoted. And let me ask you if you think that there > > > is a substantial difference between "4" and "IV". I would argue that both > > > representational symbols do not violate the parameters of human > > > perceptional limitation, which only allow for up to four visible items > > > being instantaneously operated upon and produce reliable data > > > representative. Five dots on a piece of paper should be better put in some > > > order - in order to be recognized as 5 in a blink of a moment. Or - as > > > evidence of the Spirit At Work. :) > > > > As for being afraid of James - what separates us from the other animals is > > > our deeply rooted belief that we are better than them. That should count > > > as > > > a valid argument for believing in God, the creator, in whose image we are > > > being made. > > > What struck me as "fearful" - to follow your logic - is hearing an > > > American > > > (highest degree of individualistic socialization, self-localization: > > > from-coast-to-coast) arguing towards "mutually beneficial outcomes". > > > Across > > > the pond we have our own understanding of "mutually" and "beneficial", > > > depending on our different historical cultural backgrounds and present day > > > socioeconomic situation. > > > > The global construction of oneness so far has been achieved by the force > > > of > > > necessity aka God's higher justice. How do you want to improve that > > > opponent of yours, Neil? > > > > 2013/1/17 archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > Removing spiritual blindfolds sounds suspiciously Masonic. I'm not > > > > scared by rationality - but remain very perturbed by what people will > > > > do in the name of truth. What I'm concerned with is the greater play > > > > of knowledge in democratic action - in marxism this would be praxis. > > > > The problem has long been what we can legitimate as knowledge.- > > > > control of the production of knowledge being as central to power as > > > > general control of the means of production. It strikes me the problem > > > > is less important in thinking about the democratic formation of > > > > knowledge than in description and explanation of what we are caught in > > > > in the present. We would presumably want to build democratic > > > > precaution and human rights into technology we wanted to improve these > > > > matters through. > > > > > On Jan 17, 7:54 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > what you are proposing is the worst type of dictatorship available.. > > > > > simple because there is no control.. > > > > > Judgement is one of the most difficult things to do,, Even under the > > > > > standard concepts of God judgement is very difficult to the point and > > > > > is left to God,.. in reality upon your death and resurrection back > > > > > into the realm of souls.. you are judged solely by yourself only you > > > > > know the truth and the blindfolds are removed and you are no longer a > > > > > spiritual zombie and will be able to make that type of judgement,, > > > > > to sand in judgement of others is even tougher,, > > > > > Neil not only is it something that is very hard to explain itis > > > > > something you can not explain.. as all explanations are nothing more > > > > > than justifying your point of view. > > > > > Allan > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The technological point Allan would be in terms of the facts even a > > > > > > few people like us who know each other would accept and "know" via > > > > > > database - it's very hard to explain. Currently we are generally in > > > > > > the state you suggest, though exceptionally skilled in harmlessness. > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 7:05 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Personally Neil I do not think the four of you would be capable of > > > > > >> making that type of evaluation. > > > > > >> No offence taken ... every one listed is as bigoted to their own > > > > > >> view as I am.. (",) > > > > > >> Allan > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > I'm a very woolly thinker - and part of the technology I want to > > > see > > > > > >> > would entail a bunch of us - say me, rigs, Gabs and James - being > > > able > > > > > >> > to decide on whether the public or private sector is 'better' (I > > > > > >> > suspect we'd all say this depends on circumstances) without > > > > > >> > making > > > the > > > > > >> > question into some ideological contest - and then on to the world > > > more > > > > > >> > generally. I've no doubt we could all give examples and counter- > > > > > >> > examples and suspect we'd find some consensus on not really being > > > very > > > > > >> > interested. What I really wonder is why such matters are > > > > > >> > contested > > > > > >> > ideologically rather than being subject to transparent record. > > > > > > >> > On Jan 15, 10:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> >> Didn't know you were a Papist rigs! Which changes about nothing > > > - I > > > > > >> >> was dragged up Proddy until I got Dad to write a note to school > > > > > >> >> excusing me RE. I did my maths and English homework in the > > > classes - > > > > > >> >> still took the exams and came top twice - which rather suggests > > > how > > > > > >> >> useless classrooms can be. I think a great deal is recoverable > > > from > > > > > >> >> religion concerning practical democracy and the loss of decency > > > and > > > > > >> >> organic solidarity. > > > > > >> >> I've been reading a lot of academic material on banking systems > > > for > > ... > > read more » --
