Hi Simon, >Does that make me a post-humanist? I guess to be >that you have to be a humanist in the first instance >and I know I am not a humanist. I prefer to take a >non-anthropocentric view of the universe and where >value may be found.
I have never been keen in accepting humanity as the centre of the universe, but I do view much of post-humanist thinking as yet another agency of salvation. What I mean by this is that, for me it seems to hold similar characteristics of absolutism, as much as any form of obsessed religion or metaphysical, and untouchable, great theme/scheme of things. When science becomes a mono-cultural venture in the hands of those who propose their own Promethean-led, eugenical ideologies. Even though I am appreciative in the research of academics such as Sue Blackmore and Daniel Dennett, in proposing that we are all part of a mass meme machine. Co-relation via the process of imitation of others, meaning that we are copying machines. And that the notion of the self, is an illusion. I still wonder how this can inform us beyond the trappings of yet another situation of fait accompli? Personally, I cannot help but feel that such concepts rely on a determinism which supports a more pro post-humanist agenda, as in anti-humanist. Not as in actively anti-humanist, but as in unintentionally supporting more darker tomes/agendas which could threaten our civil liberties. It may (accidentally) be a form of intellectual nihilism, serving to deny human agency by building mechanistic frameworks arguing the case that we are nothing but, disposable entities and data-objects, of mass exploration and production alone. It strikes me that it does not necessarily matter whether an agenda comes from a post-humanist, religious or political proposition, through all of this, we still submit to uncertainties and swap agency, from an authority above. marc _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
