Biocentric Transhumanism

[Claverhouse]

This one's a bit difficult: not just because I scarcely understand the author's* main thesis**, and scepticism as to people developing kicks in; but because at least once he touches on a subject which arouses the greatest outrage ever, and which I'm not discussing --- if only because it's so boring to explain that because you're a Satanic Abuse denier, it doesn't follow that you are a Groupie for Satan...

But, although I have no interest in pot or transhumanism, this is mainly about thinking. And analysing. ( Note that he explicitly explains why he is not in favour of white power, let alone nazism, but he's 'anti-anti-white'***, since racialism ( thanks to certain agendas ) appears not only permissable but mandatory when it's aimed at destroying white culture and race. I also appreciated that he realises that had the nazis won, they would have gone the same way as the USSR by now. )

Anyway, most of the site is about human transformation beyond the present, mainly in the form of a change of consciousness; so the sensitive can ignore that stuff.


Biocentric Transhumanism (http://www.geniebusters.org/)



Claverhouse :ph34r:

*Lyle Burkhead.

**
Most transhumanists are machine-centric. They expect nanocomputers and AI systems to reach a transhuman state first, after which we be able to "upload" ourselves into some new kind of hardware. I think this is nonsense. The following pages explain why, and propose an alternative scenario in which we transform ourselves from within, by redesigning our cells -- and by redesigning our language. Instead of "biocentric" I could just as well describe my philosophy as "logocentric." My vision differs from Michael Murphy's in one essential respect: I am firmly rooted in the "western" tradition, starting with Pythagoras, Thales, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, etc. in ancient Greece, and continuing through Edison, Frege, Wittgenstein, Gödel, etc. in the 19th and 20th centuries. Transformation of consciousness requires thinking, and that includes thinking about science, including the mathematical sciences. It requires improving our model of the world. ***
However, the war goes on (http://www.rense.com/general61/insane.htm). It's not just about pot per se. As I said on the Third Wave (http://www.geniebusters.org/915/05a_wave.html) page, there is an ongoing war between philistines and people who want to go into trance states. The war on pot is just the contemporary manifestation of a war on consciousness that has existed in many cultures for centuries. At this point I am not exactly pro-pot, I am just anti-anti-pot.

I have also had second thoughts about the other aspect of it. "Pro-white" is a problematic concept. The very name is misleading - it's not really about color at all. Whiteness per se is not an issue to me. And if it's a matter of white culture, well, I don't have much nostalgia for the whitebread town I grew up in (Midland, Texas). I guess I'm still pro something, but it's hard to say what it is.

However, the concept of "whiteness" isn't problematic to the other side. They know perfectly well what it means. On one of the anti-white racism pages cited above, I found this statement made by Noel Ignatiev, a (Jewish) Harvard professor:

"Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed."

I don't think anybody is going to tell the professor that he's insane and not fit to be around children.

[meshou]

Yeah. I'm kind of of the opinion that anyone who wants me to take them seriously, yet uses the word "aryan" loses the internet.

There are other people who've explored this concept without talking about the "anti-anti-white" crap. That he can't keep it separate from non-related arguments speaks of a bias.

Yes, he is being censored. No, he shouldn't be. Yes, I can still hold distaste for the things he says he can't say, and wish he would shut the fuck up about them.

Since I am interested in the subject sans the nazi rhetoric, links:

I like this article. (http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20030816.html#beep)

I wrote this one. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/meshou/137200.html)

[Jacque]

But, although I have no interest in pot or transhumanism, this is mainly about thinking. And analysing. ( Note that he explicitly explains why he is not in favour of white power, let alone nazism, but he's 'anti-anti-white'***, since racialism ( thanks to certain agendas ) appears not only permissable but mandatory when it's aimed at destroying white culture and race.

And what anti-white forces have you personally collided with?

I can't help but think that "they" are calling things "white" which have nothing to do with race at all. But by calling it "white" a race should have an active stake in its preservation (or destruction), creating delusionary sentimental attachments.

Why not save yourself a lot of reading...and headache and room moreover by staying above the fray. The discussion can only be as meaningful as the terms.


I also appreciated that he realises that had the nazis won, they would have gone the same way as the USSR by now. )

Really, could you have predicted the rise of Hitler. Did you, when studying history, stop turning page knowing what would happen next? Was history the worse suspense story you ever read?

[Claverhouse]

As I said the racist stuff I didn't want to discuss. This is about some transformation.


And what anti-white forces have you personally collided with?
If you don't know, it's best for you to remain ignorant.


I can't help but think that "they" are calling things "white" which have nothing to do with race at all. But by calling it "white" a race should have an active stake in its preservation (or destruction), creating delusionary sentimental attachments.
Semantics have never been a passion of mine.


Why not save yourself a lot of reading...and headache and room moreover by staying above the fray. The discussion can only be as meaningful as the terms.
There is absolutely no purpose to withdrawing from action or belief: inquisitive contemplative man must be allowed no boundary in thought and must be balanced by action-from-belief.

To quote Spengler: The beast of prey is the highest form of active life. It represents a mode of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting, conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression, killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists.





Really, could you have predicted the rise of Hitler. Did you, when studying history, stop turning page knowing what would happen next? Was history the worse suspense story you ever read?
This is merely silly; no-one in 1946 could have predicted that the monstrous soviet empire will be crushed by 1990, brought down by it's own weaknesses; but they could have known that only one of the two remaining powers communism/capitalism would have been solely triumphant, the question was which.

In nazism's case, the state power was far more incoherent and unstable than the marxist doctrine that served communism. Looking back rather than forward, you can see that even had the nazis won they could only have established something very similar to the EU today; and time and capitalism would have undermined whatever ethos they had to begin with. Unless they embarked on 'endless war', which would have provoked revolt all-over Europe, since they weren't loved by the masses ( not even in Germany ), their position would have been unsustainable in the long run.
The Soviets crumbled from the internal contradictions inherent in their rotten ideology just after a half a century: why should you assume the 1000-year Reich would have survived any longer ?

No Empire survives long. Rome survived longest, but it wasn't based on ideology.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jacque]

As I said the racist stuff I didn't want to discuss. This is about some transformation.[QUOTE]

So what, a transformation in consciousness is like changing your mind? I can do that. Nothing special...


[QUOTE]If you don't know, it's best for you to remain ignorant.

Ignorant? Forgive me for not spying.



There is absolutely no purpose to withdrawing from action or belief: inquisitive contemplative man must be allowed no boundary in thought and must be balanced by action-from-belief.

Absolutely? Positively absolutely none? And yet man has no boundaries in thought.



To quote Spengler: The beast of prey is the highest form of active life. It represents a mode of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting, conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression, killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists.

You're telling me that you are an animal now? Which one?



In nazism's case, the state power was far more incoherent and unstable than the marxist doctrine that served communism.

Can't it be incoherent and unstable for a long time if the people have no other options.



Looking back rather than forward, you can see that even had the nazis won they could only have established something very similar to the EU today.

Were the Nazis interested in free trade blocs: we'll trade, but I'll accept it for free.



and time and capitalism would have undermined whatever ethos they had to begin with.

So the Nazis were anti-capitalist. They killed Jews, homosexuals, gypies, the mentally retarded, communists, Russians, and socialists because they were capitalists.



The Soviets crumbled from the internal contradictions inherent in their rotten ideology just after a half a century: why should you assume the 1000-year Reich would have survived any longer?

Because the Third Reich wasn't the Soviet Union.



No Empire survives long. Rome survived longest, but it wasn't based on ideology.

How long is long? Will you bow down and worship it when it's finally long enough?

[Claverhouse]

I'm not totally understanding what it is you are trying to say, nor do I understand why you are talking about nazis, which was not the subject of the thread.


Absolutely? Positively absolutely none? And yet man has no boundaries in thought.
I stated that man must have no boundaries in thought ( unless you subscribe to either nazism or communism ( or capitalist democracy for that matter ) all of whom believe in setting boundaries ) and that the merely contemplative life is valueless without action. What does your comment address ?



You're telling me that you are an animal now? Which one?
A human, if you read Oswald's text correctly.


Can't it be incoherent and unstable for a long time if the people have no other options.
Not if it wishes to last, since people have a habit of setting their own endings to unsatisfactory regimes. Not even the machine-guns on the Wall eventually stopped the Berliners from tearing down that Wall.


Were the Nazis interested in free trade blocs: we'll trade, but I'll accept it for free.
The EU is now an entity, imposing it's will ( benevolently, if you like ) over a Europe which has pooled it's sovereignties. It is not a free trade bloc.


So the Nazis were anti-capitalist. They killed Jews, homosexuals, gypies, the mentally retarded, communists, Russians, and socialists because they were capitalists.
No, they killed these people for various reasons, and they in turn killed the nazis ( except for the homosexuals, the gypsies ( both groups which jewish holocaust groups deny were holocausted ) and the retarded ) for various reasons. A large part of the party, particularly the Strasserites and the SA were very anti-capitalist; but the majority including Hitler and the SS were pro-capitalist. Your point is missing.

My point was that capitalism, particularly that of the USA would have undermined and destroyed a nazi Europe even if they had won. Once Hitler declared war on America, nazi Germany had no chance of winning. Even if they had repelled Britain/America at D-Day, American opposition would still have brought down nazism in the end: simply because America was impossible to conquer and far richer and more populous than Germany could ever be.


Because the Third Reich wasn't the Soviet Union.
Meaningless.


How long is long? Will you bow down and worship it when it's finally long enough?
I wouldn't because I detest nazism; and capitalism; and democracy; and communism, and republicanism, and Papal Authority, and a great deal of other systems that seemed impregnable to people at the time, and lasted too long. Nor would the people of Europe have worshipped nazism once it was installed.

And why should you accuse me of finally bowing down when it is I that am pointing out it would collapse from it's own flaws ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jacque]

I'm not totally understanding what it is you are trying to say, nor do I understand why you are talking about nazis, which was not the subject of the thread.

I was picking apart your comment about the Nazis, which doesn't require any constructive statements on my part, if that was what you were looking for. "Although I have no interest in pot or transhumanism, this is mainly about thinking. And analysing."

I'm understanding you fine. Maybe you should ask more questions.


I stated that man must have no boundaries in thought ( unless you subscribe to either nazism or communism ( or capitalist democracy for that matter ) all of whom believe in setting boundaries ) and that the merely contemplative life is valueless without action. What does your comment address?

Your belief sets boundaries on purpose.


A human, if you read Oswald's text correctly.

Alright, who ranks second in the class of beasts of prey?


Not even the machine-guns on the Wall eventually stopped the Berliners from tearing down that Wall.

Did they start shooting? It doesn't count if they don't shoot.


The EU is now an entity, imposing it's will ( benevolently, if you like ) over a Europe which has pooled it's sovereignties. It is not a free trade bloc.

Isn't it just monetary policy? Isn't pooling sovereignies like federalising government? Can't they still declare war on an individual basis?


A large part of the party, particularly the Strasserites and the SA were very anti-capitalist; but the majority including Hitler and the SS were pro-capitalist. Your point is missing.

My point? I did my best to not imply much through my questions. But if they were conflicted, how does capitalism serve as an idealogically undermining force?


My point was that capitalism, particularly that of the USA would have undermined and destroyed a nazi Europe [....] simply because America was impossible to conquer and far richer and more populous than Germany could ever be.

So only the richest and most populous nation can be capitalist? I thought it was a system more than it was political status symbol.


Meaningless.

??? Do you need a dictionary?


And why should you accuse me of finally bowing down when it is I that am pointing out it would collapse from it's own flaws?

Accusing? You have a concept of how long is long enough. I've a poor sense of time. I was hoping you could explain. So are you saying now that no x amount of years in power could move you to reverence?

[waxwing]

I'd like to reply to Claverhouse's intial comments. I find them intriguing. Now, to begin, thinking seems necessary to achieve a transhuman state. In my understanding, there must be several avenues by which to think about thinking. Metacognition, I suppose. Some seem inclined to understand thinking as a machinated process, devoid of the other aspects of human nature, which include -- but are not limited to -- action, emotion, and will. Others approach thinking in combination with intuition, which seems more appropriate for a human being living in the social realm. In other words, it could be said that intuition propels pure thought. To divorce thought from necessary intution seems not only unrealistic, but counterproductive. I realize that John Dewey may not be an obvious quoteworthy philosopher at this point, but he speaks a lot about philosophy and the necessity of coupling it with practice, and so on. Through this combination, transformation is possible, not only of the self but of the system(s) in which one functions.

"...The student of philosophy "in itself' is always in danger of taking it as so much nimble or severe intellectual exercise -- as something said by philosophers and concerning them alone. But when philosophic issues are approached from the side of the kind of mental disposition to which they correspond, or the differences in educational practice they make when acted upon, the life-situations which they formulate can never be far from view. If a theory makes no difference in educational endeavor, it must be artificial. The educational point of view enables one to envisage the philosophic problems where they arise and thrive, where they are at home, and where acceptance or rejection makes a difference in practice...."
- John Dewey, from Democracy and Education

Next, to quote Martin Heidegger (an excerpt from The Basic Problems of Phenomonology):

"We shall not deduce the concrete phenomenological problems from some dogmatically proposed concept of phenomenology; on the contrary, we shall allow ourselves to be led to them by a more general and preparatory discussion of the concept of scientific philosophy in general. We shall conduct this discussion in tacit apposition to the basic tendencies of Western philosophy from antiquity to Hegel.

In the early period of ancient thought philosophia means the same as science in general. Later, individual philosophies, that is to say, individual sciences - medicine, for instance, and mathematics - become detached from philosophy. The term philosophia then refers to a science which underlies and encompasses all the other particular sciences. Philosophy becomes science pure and simple. More and more it takes itself to be the first and highest science or, as it was called during the period of German idealism, absolute science. If philosophy is absolute science, then the expression "scientific philosophy" contains a pleonasm. It then means scientific absolute science. It suffices simply to say "philosophy." This already implies science pure and simple. Why then do we still add the adjective "scientific" to the expression "philosophy"? A science, not to speak of absolute science, is scientific by the very meaning of the term. We speak of "scientific philosophy" principally because conceptions of philosophy prevail which not only imperil but even negate its character as science pure and simple. These conceptions of philosophy are not just contemporary but accompany the development of scientific philosophy throughout the time philosophy has existed as a science. On this view philosophy is supposed not only, and not in the first place, to be a theoretical science, but to give practical guidance to our view of things and their interconnection and our attitudes toward them, and to regulate and direct our interpretation of existence and its meaning. Philosophy is wisdom of the world and of life, or, to use an expression current nowadays, philosophy is supposed to provide a Weltanschauung, a world-view. Scientific philosophy can thus be set off against philosophy as world-view."

I know that was lengthy, but its content seems relevant.

[Jacque]

Metacognition, I suppose. Some seem inclined to understand thinking as a machinated process, devoid of the other aspects of human nature, which include -- but are not limited to -- action, emotion, and will. Others approach thinking in combination with intuition, which seems more appropriate for a human being living in the social realm. In other words, it could be said that intuition propels pure thought. To divorce thought from necessary intution seems not only unrealistic, but counterproductive. I realize that John Dewey may not be an obvious quoteworthy philosopher at this point, but he speaks a lot about philosophy and the necessity of coupling it with practice, and so on. Through this combination, transformation is possible, not only of the self but of the system(s) in which one functions.

I remember one of the criticism leveled against Jung was against his concept of intuition. Rather than thinking of it as mystical and unpenetrable, it was posited as an unconscious application of logical deduction and that the user lacked enough introspection to reduce it as such. Thus, intuitive "biocentric" thought is merely a formulation ignorant of its own processes.

"...The student of philosophy "in itself' is always in danger of taking it as so much nimble or severe intellectual exercise -- as something said by philosophers and concerning them alone. But when philosophic issues are approached from the side of the kind of mental disposition to which they correspond, or the differences in educational practice they make when acted upon, the life-situations which they formulate can never be far from view. If a theory makes no difference in educational endeavor, it must be artificial. The educational point of view enables one to envisage the philosophic problems where they arise and thrive, where they are at home, and where acceptance or rejection makes a difference in practice...."
- John Dewey, from Democracy and Education
[?QUOTE]

Dewey's pragmatic instrumentalism seems very mechanistic. I could see it as an android philosophy of survival and multiplication, not one of pure thought. I think you have a different notion of intuition.

Pure thought should be limitless in that it probes all modes of thinking. Dewey's belief - never truths for pragmatism is relativist - is ontologically based, reality based. Now, Peirce's *pragmaticism* is teleological, futuristic and purpose oriented. One thing we know of mechanism is that they remain teleologically inflexible. Although we can't say neither of organisms. The uncertain possibility bears hope.