Transhumanism

[dougkeenan]

That's the sequel to "Man Plus"

 

[Andy44]

Ah, I read it but didn't know that, I'll have to look for it.

 

[David]

Gattica

GATTACA (all, and only, nucleotide symbols, arguably intentional)

The monoliths of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, for instance, are the machine-descendants of a biological alien species that ceased to exist long ago. The aliens did more than just transfer their minds to the machines; they merged their minds together within the machine "hive" such that the idea of the individual no longer really holds a meaning for that species. A cruder SF example would be the Borg of Star Trek fame (although the Borg never truly lose their individuality, only suppress it).

I watched a recent movie, "Invasion" (Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig). It's kind of an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theme, with an interesting philosophical twist: everybody becomes "pod people" with a hive mind that coincidentally results in an end to all war and other human conflict. Complication: Nicole Kidman's son is immune - sought, by the remaining human Resistance, as a basis for cure, and by the pod people, for extermination; she kinda likes the "end to war" part, but not so much the "your son must die" part.

 

[Andy44]

Another great SF transhumanist example is Jerry Pournelle's Saurons from his future history of the CoDominium/Empire of Man. Saurons are selectively bred, genetically enhanced, and cybernetically enhanced humans from a planet called "Sauron" (yes, they named it purposely after a Tolkein bad guy), who attempt to create a super race of humans. They secede from the empire and attempt to subjugate the human norms, or "cattle" as they call us, and will use the best breeding stock of the cattle to enhance the overall race. The idea is to create something that exceeds the standard limitations of the human species and master as much of the universe as possible. Similar to Nazis, but without all the ideological and religious nonsense, Saurons are ice cold and absolutley bent on acheiving the goal of transforming the human race.

 

[Linguofreak]

I would say that your willingness to embrace this metaphor actually fully supports my assertion that traditonal notions of spirituality are premised on philosophical dualism. With respect, that is precisely what philosophers have meant for thousand of years when they use the term, so it seems to me that it's just as well if you go ahead and embrace the term: If it doesn't mean what you've described, then it doesn't mean anything.

You can say "dualism" if you want, but I still object to your conflating it with postmodernistic subjective reality, as you did in the other thread:

...in that traditional spiritualism accepts at most only a dualistic foundation of reality, while postmodernism embraces an essentially unbounded reality defined only by subjective experience and, ultimately power relationships...

Even if you call it "dualism," it is still not dual in the sense that postmodernism is plural. It posits a single, objective reality, of which the physical universe is a part. Changes to or violations of the rules of the physical universe are because it is part of a larger system, and is changing as a result of consistent rules operating in that system.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, posits multiple realities which are subjective and arbitrary. Changes to reality are because you've managed to dream up something different.

 

[GregBurch]

You can say "dualism" if you want, but I still object to your conflating it with postmodernistic subjective reality, as you did in the other thread:



Even if you call it "dualism," it is still not dual in the sense that postmodernism is plural. It posits a single, objective reality, of which the physical universe is a part. Changes to or violations of the rules of the physical universe are because it is part of a larger system, and is changing as a result of consistent rules operating in that system.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, posits multiple realities which are subjective and arbitrary. Changes to reality are because you've managed to dream up something different.

I really agree with everything you've written here. The relatively narrow focus of the text I originally posted presented the viewpoint from which traditional spiritualism and postmodernism were both viewed as enemies. Of course there's a big difference between them when viewed though just about any other lens.

And, as I pointed out in that text, moderates in "all three directions" aren't really the problem for those who will ultimately want to try to transcend human nature. You seem to be a moderate spiritualist, one of those who's likely shrug your shoulders and say, "It's your body, your mind," and stand aside to see just how weird the result might turn out. But have no doubt that there are those who would take it to be their religious duty to intervene to stop others from making the attempt.

 

[n0mad23]

I think if you want to look at dualism from the monotheistic perspective, Islam can be pretty revealing.

For example, I think for most of us in the West, we're pretty shocked at the lopping of the right hand as a punishment for theft. However, the dualistic model runs deep in this religion (and I believe helps explicate some of the same philosophical perspectives in both Christianity and Judaism - all monotheistic people of the book), and helps to explain this activity.

If I'm reading it correctly, dualism runs so deep in the Islamic perception that the body is actually the domain of PUBLIC space and not private. In other words, the chopping off a hand doesn't effect the soul within. It also helps explain the pinching and groping you're bound to encounter in Cairo for example.

However, this applies first and foremost to Middle Eastern and specifically Arab Islam. My own experience indicates there's a bit more flexibility in both Southeast Asian and West African perceptions. Naturally you can find exceptions in both locations as well.