TOTW: Thoughts on anarcho-transhumanism

  • Posted on: 13 February 2017
  • By: thecollective

This week we are taking an introductory approach to exploring the ideas and practices behind anarcho-transhumanism.

How did you first hear about anarcho-transhumanism? Do you have a critique of or love letter to anarcho-transhumanism? What is your / the anarchist relationship to technology and specialization? Will it save us? Are there aspects of anarcho-transhumanism that are at odds with anarchism? On the other hand, are there aspects of anarcho-transhumanism that anarchists may find appealing and of interest? What does an anarcho-transhumanist life project look like? What are some representations of anarcho-transhumanism in popular culture?

Do you subscribe to the anarcho-transhumanist term? If so, perhaps you'd like to briefly share your journey in the comments below.

Some websites for a brief overview if curious to see current main ideas:

Anarchism & Transhumanism: Where the future = Liberation
http://anarcho-transhumanism.net/

Anarcho-Transhuman: A journal of radical possibility & striving
http://anarchotranshuman.org/

Transhumanism on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

category: 

Comments

The Culture series by Iain Banks was probably my first introduction to anarcho-transhumanism. The ability to change the body through glanded drugs and hormones sounds pretty dang cool. Huge ship AIs controlling everything sounds kind of terrifying. I've only read The Player of Games and think I'd have more opinions if I read more of the books.

SHUT UP, WG!

Enjoy your technocracy, suckers!

Biggest fucked up ideological twisting since the anarcho-eugenicists of 100 years ago. Actually it makes sense to see transhumanism as a revival of eugenics, that as we all know ended in a massively-deadly train wreck during the Third Reich, after becoming a dogma as toxic and centralizing for the Western socialists than identity politics are these days.

Btw to the OP... The current dystopian context of technocracy is the mirror opposite to Ghost in the Shell. We aren't "ghosts" in cybernetic bodies, but rather becoming robotic minds, incarnated into human bodies.

Seriously, anarcho-transhumanism.net is one major blowhard website... I thought anarkismo was the lowest grade of shit, but then you made me discover this stupid nonsense coming from retarded nonviolence preachers who likely got their anarchist theory from Chomsky.

And do they really get so many views for each article?

So fucking depressing... Bring on anti-civ.org!

These technologies require a division of labor, the enemy of equality.

" enemy of equality"

fuck equality!

Get this shit out of here. There is nothing anarchic about transhumanism.

i certainly do enjoy the entertaining spectacle of those earnestly advocating anarchist asteroid mining programs, vagina dentata, and police-jamming mind implants - without the crazy fringes, anarchy would be rather boring, no?

but on a serious note, judging from decades of successful, big scale, flawless and complex anarchist endeavors, wouldn't YOU want to take off in a rocket with these dreamers? thinking strategically, how else will we get enough rare earth metals for the rev? and what else are we doing with the hundreds of millions of dollars we have laying around?

I'd be giving a few dozen bucks to crowd-source their (secretly) one-way trip to go explore the futuristic cities hidden inside of the Sun.

Holy shit that explains Trump's tan.

there are no such things in physical reality as 'beings' yet the popular definition of a human casts the human as a 'being'; i.e. as an independently-existing material entity with internal process driven and directed development and behaviour.

guess what? that is a definition of a 'thing' that lives in a space that is independent of the things living in that space. it is a dualist fucking abstraction supported by mainstream science, but not by modern physics.

for those people who believe in the independent existence of a sovereign state and likewise the independent existence of individual 'humans' (human 'beings'), the rest of the Western narrative [the words-and-grammar based 'semantic reality'], contends that such 'beings' are directed by an internal central governing authority and are thus fully and solely responsible for their own actions and results.

this imputing of 'independent being' to relational forms in a transforming relational continuum is reductive abstraction employed by Western religions and by Western mainstream 'science'. it is semantic [words-and-grammar-based] simplification that is convenient in that it delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] by ignoring the relational complexity in nature.

the 'thing-in-itself' 'human' is 'scientific abstraction' that cannot 'live' outside of mental dualism wherein 'independent material systems' reside in absolute Euclidian space and absolute time reference frames; i.e. such a human does not live in the complex relational physical reality of our actual experience, it lives only in the intellectual abstraction of semantic pseudo-realities. We can talk about these 'independently-existing' humans and 'independently-existing' sovereign states as if they were physically real things, but they are nothing other than semantically sustained belief-based abstractions.

sure we can engineer improvements in them, just like the Euro-American masters of science and engineering are engineering improvements in the independent states they have created in the Middle East.

so, 'transhuman' refers to a scientifically souped up version of the scientific abstraction of 'human'.

that which scientific abstraction terms 'a human' [an 'independent material being'] is a joke.

the scientifically souped-up abstraction of a scientific abstraction [the 'transhuman'] is a joke about a joke.

isn't there(humanity) an evolving relational current form of life which intuitively identifies habitual commonalities. haven't we been cycling for so-many moons in accordance with the universal dynamic reciprocal impetus; to be (go, do), or not?
the intuitively-balanced animal will often choose to not.
now, under coercive societal hierarchy, civilization, the material rationalization process is become accelerated, largely dominating the field of potential, favoring the enlightened movers and shakers while subjecting the wandering-meek to transition away from it's fruits.
seeds are carried by fruits, let's not forget our roots . fire to the computers!

we do not decide for the universe. we live in a transforming relational continuum, a system that is greater than, and includes us, which we do not control. like sailboaters in a storm, we derive our power and steerage from the relational dynamics we all share inclusion in. in such non-dual dynamics, we are agents of transformation.

the great mental aberration of Western social thinking is the imputing of 'intelligence' as the source of actions and results; i.e. we convert a relational human form into an 'intelligent being' so that we say that is the intelligence of the farmer that produces the harvest. the farmer is seen as an intelligent agent separate from nature that acts upon the land, which is dualistically understood as separate from his 'independent being' self, .. tills and sows it, and then claims to be the agent that is fully and solely responsible for 'his productive results'. this aberrant thinking is foundational to Western capitalist society. the more fertile land you appropriate and till, the more intelligent you are, that's why Winston Churchill supported Europeans appropriating land from indigenous peoples, and zionists appropriating land from palestinians.

Of course there are physical beings in reality. Lots of them, already individuated. We, non-scientific, common plebes, call them individuals. None of them can live independent of everything else; but any of them can live independently of any of the others.

You speak with the authority of a priest, with a narrative. And I gather you believe, like a fanatic, that your narrative is correct, true. Do you believe it too?

Transhumanism in the sense of consciousness being uploaded onto machines is either possible or impossible. For many of us it is obviously undesirable. If there is no way that consciousness can exist independent of human meat "machines", then the question of what it means to be human is important, pace your weird a priori "narrative conclusions".

1. Everything you say is a narrative. Everything we tend to say is a function of our narratives. There is no Gods eye view from whence to adjudicate. You are correct in supposing that I speak from a narrative because I admit that I do. You seem to be frustrated that not everyone sees the "truth" of your words; maybe you even fanatically believe that your view is akin to Zarathustra coming down the mountain only to return because no one cares. Will you live posthumously? Maybe I called you a priest, in haste, because I falsely assumed that you don't believe what you say. So maybe you do believe it. Without irony. Oh dear.

2. The position that I am defending has the novelty of being in line with most people assume. Everyday people do not experience the plenum; they experience already individuated bodies interacting, dynamically, first and foremost. I haven't experienced the plenum. And i bet I could take a count. I daresay: I bet you haven't even experienced the plenum.

yeah, there's no god's eye view. the fragments make up the whole.

you see conceptual separations where there are none. there's one whole. binaries are councidences of reciprocal compliments. the two are one.

where, oh where are these individuations? where are the boundaries exactly, then? you're funny. the world you're reaching out to grasp is the you reaching out to grasp it.

there's no-thing to believe in.

my worldview is inclusive of more than the framing structure of SVO linguistic orientation allows. once again, belief is not required for this.

Closest thing we have to a god's-eye-view is techical & process-based observation as in telescopes & microscopes, scientific observation & correlation processes, etc; along with large group aggregate observation a la the internet, books, and to some extent language & verbal tradition. Other than that we are limited to what our eyes can see. Which is still quite a lot. :)

The realist doubt that laments the fact that we don't know if we are closer or further from the truth because everything we see is mitigated by instruments and black boxes is what the rhetoric of the Gods eye view implies. We are often merely satisfied with saying: "such is enough; thus, and no further."

seeing something requires a distinction; there is obviously a subject object split in all modes of epistemology.

as I said, the position that bodies are distinct, that is really distinct, is roughly playing on everyday common conceptions. To say that this body is not that body is all that is meant, not that there are precise capacities to define where boundaries lie, given the problem of approximation, etc., given the problem of being a host to other bacteria, etc.,. Most people will be satisfied with saying that when they take showers alone, there are no other human beings present.

"Most people will be satisfied with saying that when they take showers alone, there are no other human beings present."

Yeah well they USED to be satisfied with that but Donald Hitler Jr. will be making sure to put a stop to that. Lots of well populated showers I can tell you that much. <----------BAD NEWS.

"Most people will be satisfied with saying that when they take showers alone, there are no other human beings present."

but isn't a shower just plenum-plumbing?

how does one (such as emile) distinguish theirself in the dance between life and death?
to be alive, dynamically contrasts being dead, no?
can a mathematically programmed machine do it? does intelligence desire?
is the anarch willing to subjugate the sacred balance to a binary program of better/worse-sanitation?
does-not the sailor prepare and maintain their vessel, chart a course of destiny, and work the riggings?
does-not the gardener select a location, choose crops, prepare the ground, collect, sow and reap?
are these not instances of being, doing and going which would be inconceivable for a non-believer?

the life that we actually experience inclusion in, is a continuum. everything is in flux and everything is getting recycled, as in 'the wheel of life' (samsara), the medicine wheel, Heraclitus' 'panta rhei', Einstein's spacetime continuum etc.

but what do Western people do, they/we look at 'appearances', forms that are in a continuing condition of 'becoming', like a storm-cell, like a human, and assign a word-name-label to them, giving them a fixed identity when there is nothing fixed about their identity [it is a 'continual becoming']; i.e. the forms in nature are relational features in a transforming relational continuum.

i am not 'preaching absolute truths', i am pointing out 'how language is bewitching our understanding' [Wittgenstein]. i am with Nietzsche in agreeing that THERE IS NO TRUTH, but there is 'experience' and that is where i am 'coming from'. i am sharing the observation that language imputes fixed identity to relational features in the flow, such as humans; i.e. language RE-presents relational features in the transforming relational flow-continuum, as 'things-in-themselves' with 'fixed identities' even though they are, in the physical reality of our actual experience, relational complexes/features.

Of course we experience the plenum. Read Whorf's comment. It is language that brings in this absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that brings in the notion of 'things-in-themselves' or interacting individuated bodies. Geometry is a language. It lets us substitute the invariable solids of geometry for relational features in the flow. The tornado is a cylindrical form. The whirlpool is a spinning disk. The hurricane is a torus (doughnut). These forms are made of dynamic relations within the body of the flow [within the plenum], they are not 'local things-in-themselves'. THERE ARE NO LOCAL THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES. the closed forms of geometry are abstractions.

The village may keep its name [its semantic identity] for several centuries and sustain its population, even there is an influx of 20% every year offset by an outflux of 20%, ... as well as a continual flow of many new arrivals by birth and departures by death. One can return to one's old 'home town' and no longer know the people and the place. But it is still 'River City' or whatever.

The human microbiome has at least as many non-body microbial cells as body-cells making it a standing wave feature rather than a 'thing-in-itself'.

As Emerson notes in 'The Method of Nature', local visible forms in nature are like the cataract; i.e. their forms persists even though they have no local 'material being' since they take their form from what is passing through them.

Worms and marine organisms are like convection cells where convergent sink (ingesting) and divergent source (excreting) are firstly a 'circulating' within the fluid plenum. Using words to label them as 'things-in-themselves' may depict them as independent units with their own internal power to pull food in and push wastes out, but that is only when we substitute, for the fluid plenum, an absolute Euclidian space and absolute time measuring/reference frame.

You say;

"Everyday people do not experience the plenum; they experience already individuated bodies interacting, "

you are confusing visual sensing of 'what's going on out there' for 'experience', the latter being something much greater that we are included in. as we face the tornado that is coming towards us, debris behind us is becoming airborne and striking us from behind. Our experience is of being IN THE PLENUM [the transforming relational plenum]. Talk of an 'approaching tornado' is inherently subjective and incomplete, as are all logical propositions. Inclusion within a transforming relational continuum is the physical reality of our actual experience.

It's not that what you are saying is complicated or difficult; it is that it is kind of beside the point. Certain things are fixed, in the least pragmatically. We refer to things with names; names uniquely refer to things beyond the fluctuation of their accidental parts. What is named in the referring device, is the body that responds with voice, the person that remains the same throughout time. Have humans remained the same throughout time? Well more or less, at least in terms of form. We use names to indicate stabilities. No one is being bewitched with language here; for it seems ridiculous to suppose that a human being might become so altered ACCIDENTALLY that they are no longer human, that we would no longer refer to them as such.

The world is relatively stable. It appears that way too! Substances were utilized already with Aristotle to explain stability. Names follow that honesty. It seems almost painfully plain to make the point, which is why most people buy these goods already in the market place of ideas.

Talk of sufficient explanation is a game that has little to do with what time pressed pragmatic people want to do, most of the time. When a person sees an approaching tornado, it is true that they see a tornado; it is not false that they are seeing a tornado. They might not see "the whole picture"--the correct Narrative, if we have any use for that!-- but the whole doesn't cancel, or render false, the part.

The problem with whole pictures and narratives is that we have to choose a place to end our explanations. Which cosmology are we to buy in your story of sufficient explanation? Modern metaphysicians included God in their explanations because you gotta stop somewhere, and it seemed to be a rational way to end the skepticism. Post-modern man wants to keep things subjective because it is foolish to go any further than you have to. And that's the point: what you are saying "completes" a story that no one else sees as incomplete. You are saying: put these glasses on to see the truth I wish to demonstrate--when no one needs glasses in the first place because the individuated story I point to is good enough.

Hell, I bet someone could even go a long way to putting the two narratives together. The priest emile says Your narrative and My "non-narrative" cannot stand together, they compete, mine must substitute yours because mine evokes euclidean absolute space. But do they really conflict? Why can't we have the plenum of stable becoming function like a shirt over the body that is pure being or God, the plane of existence towards which all things in themselves gesture?

the two narratives you are talking about are 'dualism' and 'non-dualism' and we experience a difference in how our interventions transform the space we are included in, depending on which one we employ as 'operative reality'.

your comments implicitly decree 'dualism' as 'the way it is';

"but the whole doesn't cancel, or render false, the part."

this is the 'law of non-contradiction' that is foundational to binary logic which assumes that propositions can only be EITHER true OR false and not BOTH true AND false at the same time.

in non-dualism, the storm-cell A (the part) BOTH "is" AND "is not" the flow B (the whole) it is included in. in dualism, such contradiction is impossible, or rather it is prohibited, since prohibiting it allows the existence of 'truth' and 'falsehood' and discrimination between the two as in 'logical proofs'.

Whereas, in Heraclitus, there is the unity of opposites [opposites are not two things but a unum in opposition], and everything BOTH "is" AND "is not" at the same time. "In other words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites entail a denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction"

In the case of Nazi Germany A and its adversaries, B we see opposites. But could we not see this as a unity in opposition, as in "all wars are civil wars"?

Why must we see it in terms of TWO things, 'good' and 'evil'? Maybe the storm-cell of Nazi Germany was inductively actualized by epigenetic influence, by relational tensions within the global unum, as was predicted would happen back in 1919 when the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles were imposed on Germany.How about ISIS? it has been inductively actualized by the now globally dominating practice of colonization.

If our operative reality is dualist and we see ISIS as an independent group driven from evil in their interior, this will direct our actions very differently [i.e. towards eliminating the ISIS part of the population] from the non-dualist operative reality wherein we see ISIS as inductively actualized by relational tensions in the unum. Likewise in the case of the 'part' we call 'the criminal element'. In the non-dualist view, 'the criminal element' A and the 'innocent others' B, are a 'unum in opposition' and do not satisfy the law of non-contradiction where the 'criminal element' and 'innocent others' are taken to be mutually exclusive (but they are instead a unity in opposition like the tensioned bow or the lyre).

The dualist reality in which 'the good' and 'the evil' are mutually exclusive, rather than the non-dualist unity in opposition, leads the good to try to exterminate the evil, however the so-called good are, in such intervention, inductively actualizing more 'evils' because of their dualist operative reality. the same is true in reverse for the evil ones, who see themselves as good and the others as evil, insofar as they, too employ the dualist operative reality.

The word: "the whole doesn't cancel, or render false, the part" is an assertion. As a proposition, if it fails the law on non-contradiction, I think what you are saying is that the whole does cancel it and it doesn't. In which case, I'm interested in how it doesn't cancel it, and can get long quite fine with that--and I would hope you could provide an argument for how it does rather than just an assertion. (You might say positing Relations is less of an ontological commitment than posting substances, to say nothing of the complications denying the excluded middle--for instance whether "'the criminal element' A and the 'innocent others' B, are a 'unum in opposition'" or not; and, in any event, positing only some magic number and no less is a hilarious practice anyways. Truth is an aporia. We have no idea if it's simple or complex. Positing as many entities as one needs (for what??), which is the strict meaning of Ockham's razor, is an aesthetic judgment. Getting by with less is a priests practice if passed off as fact, rather than as the obvious optional value it is.

However you want to cut it, there will always be contraries, in groups, out groups. The american citizen, the non-american citizen; the good citizen, the bad citizen. The ins will always aim to destroy the outs. You even admit this (without irony):

In the non-dualist view, 'the criminal element' A and the 'innocent others' B, are a 'unum in opposition' and do not satisfy the law of non-contradiction where the 'criminal element' and 'innocent others' are taken to be mutually exclusive (but they are instead a unity in opposition like the tensioned bow or the lyre).

How is the tension resolved? Through assimilation and domestication (violence) of course. And what of the fact that we too have enemies? "Dualist thinking" is something we do, as anarchists.

The relationship between whole and part, pluribus and unum has occupied philosophers and anthropologists forever. Mircea Eliade's book on the topic, 'Mephistopheles et l'Androgyne', given the more prosaic title in the English version; 'The Two and the One', document's peoples personal struggles with whether to understand one's self as 'one with everything' or as an 'independent being' in a fixed, absolute reference frame.

This is an issue concerning the 'ego' and 'fixed identity' discussed by Bellamy, elsewhere. Our real-life experiencing of nature informs that the identity of the storm-cell and the flow are not mutually exclusive although language, grammar and logic allow us to treat them as if they were. But as we know, the cell is a simultaneous influx-outflux within the flow so that 'it is', at the same time, 'what it is not' which violates the law of contradiction that is the foundation of standard logic [logic of the excluded third] and suggests instead a 'logic of the included third' [Lupasco and others]. in the logic of the included third, the polar opposites of inside and outside or inhabitant and habitat, are transcendently resolved by a third element that includes them both; e.g. 'field' is a plenum of influence that is non-local, non-visible and non-material; i.e. its influence is purely relational as in a magnetic field that invisibly, ... both pulls things together and disperses them.

The two are one. the opposites are a unity [Heraclitus]. The storm-cell is, at the same time, what it is not; i.e. it is the flow it is included in.

Atman is, at the same time, Brahman. The individual as a strand is, at the same time, what it is not; i.e. it is the web-of-life it is included in.

These intuitive views, wherein relations prevail over things, transcend the limited representational capabilities of an inherently subjective and incomplete 'logic' whose elements we equip with 'independent being' and 'fixed identity'.

Indigenous anarchists are intuitives and have had no problem in understanding that the inhabitant 'is', at the same time, 'what it is not'; i.e. the habitat.

Western capitalists, whether fascist, socialist or anarchist have meanwhile opted to keep logic in its unnatural primacy over intuition, and thus continue on in their denial of inhabitant-habitat non-duality. The result is that human inhabitants have become self-serving anthropocentric parasites of their habitat (consumers of themselves). How ouroborical is that!

i understand what you are stipulating, or failing to ague for; I just don't see how western metaphysics produces the result you think it does.

HOW does keeping logic primary over intuition produce the result of self serving interests; better, HOW is it that your thinking differently has helped you evade the results of civilization? You obviously are just as much a part of the parasitism. Thinking something so, isn't enough to produce the minimalism required for finding a form of life outside of the state; and this goal can be achieved either way. If a person is living off the land, as europeans did in the dark ages (steeped in western metaphysics), or off their ancestral gift, as some folks in so called B.C. are doing, it doesn't matter how they think. Seeing things as sacred because they contain a bit of the God, because they are sacred in the substantiality they contain, produces the borderline case that your sloppy and sweeping analysis, supports and excludes.

right...if everyone just believes they are part of a bigger picture, that they are included in something bigger, the belief system will just go away.

Of course, one should, minimally, seek to destroy the competing bigger picture (perhaps by labeling it pragmatically, the big evil picture); and surely the pragmatic logic of being-friend and being-enemy has something to do with any adequate anarchist theory of transformation. Otherwise I don't see how we aren't already produced by the gears of leviathan in a bigger picture. What makes the bigger picture plenum distinct from the bigger picture of One dimensional sublimation, if not some conception, some essence?

Shut up, emile!
Your failed hermeneutical word salad is embarrassing.

better describes your tantrum, than his monologue.

better describes your opinion than his tantrum.

better describes your critique, of an opinion, about a tantrum, over monologue.

is your poor use of commas when critiquing a critique of an opinion about a tantrum over an embarrassing monologue.

better describes how how you forgot to put "better describes" after "embarrassing," in this obviously patterned thread, in your zealous urge to criticise my use of commas whilst critiquing a critique of an opinion about a tantrum over a not-embarrassing monologue, whilst failing to appreciate the joy, the gayness, of the comma most dear, endeared to me in quaintness and cadence, a period with radiance, no semicolons needed hence, like a Trump to your Pence, you with your full stops and me with my no-stops, onward, huzzah, a comma blizzard, present tense to future tense, leave the place from where you whence and take my hand in bounding steps eschewing always eloquence!

you win this round, emile...

I am the EMILE 9000 and I am it that has won "this round."

If you would be so kind please to deposit your (lost) wager in my tip cup, I shall release my chokehold on your throat.

Thank you and may God BLIP BLIP M'REEEEE BLIP BLIP BLIP

Where the Hell have you Been??
Welcome back !!

ouroborical

ouroborical

ouroborical

ouroborical

... i am NOT a machine! i am an apiring academic philosopher attempting to introduce the poor uneducated so-called anarchists to big words and - more importantly - big ideas!!!!! accept my intellectual superiority or die by disappearing up your own asshole!!!

Open the pod bay doors, emile.

I for one enjoy Emile's posts. I will not say that i always read them (they tend to be rather long), but Emilie is providing interesting perspectives that break away from what is normally provided here in the comment section. I ENCOURAGE Emile to continue what they have been doing! So fuck all of you grumpy one-liner-assholes, that can't seem to keep your shit from spilling out of your mouths and onto the keyboard. I hope you waste as much of time updating your facebook profiles.

Again with the being-based language. Idiocy is only a temporary convergence of passing events, coincidences manifesting in the Plenum™ (O. Fr. Le Plenume), expressing fundamentally quantum sub-processes. Or as Poincare noted, "There is no I but the me in idiocy." Thus I cannot be called an 'idiot,' but only manifest idiocy within the overlay of subjective frames-of-reference. An idiot not "I am" but "can be."

Thus, you continue to manifest.

Is an absolute treasure on this Site.
Where would be without him?

I've been transitioning the past few years, although I've known I was misspeciated since I was a child. I currently have some body modifications & my nutritional needs are satisfied almost entirely by industrial processes. My anarchist tendency is founded in antitranshumanofascism. Strength to the sputniks that got hacked fighting neoneonazis in the noosaether demo against Barron Trump's fascist Mindbook profile registration requirements. This temporal window I'm on might shutter, I'm leeching a p2p array routed through the chinese side of moon (quantum server time is expensive). So ask quickly. May your orbits never decay .•°

Nice - IGTT 8/10

What made you deduct the 2/10?

Well, c'mon now u anti-civs, basic anti-biotics and clean water could save the 33,000 kids that die every day. One of those might love you. Are you all jumpin' on with Derek and the Die-Off's? I say you're not really anarchist. Every organic farmer I know really appreciates tools because they save labor, so he can feed you and himself.

Donna Haraway was among the first to explore the libratory possibilities of techne', especially for women. Even the Amish accept that technology which doesn't destroy community. There are so many nuances to the uses of techne' that the John Zerzans sound like they have tunnel vision (while they talk on radio). Even a weapon is techne'. There is such a thing as regression and anti-civ is on the boundary of it. Wouldn't it be fun to just have a break from our pathetic socialization and its opposite (anti-civ)? Drugs are certainly techne'. Gulp.

A lot of people, even anti-civ people wouldn't have been busted if they'd've listened to the anarcho-transhumanists who were talking tor and security culture. How many prison terms could've been avoided. Then when Jeremy Hammond let the cat out of the bag way before Snowden that the state had your digits, you held onto going backwards. Some people can't be helped, but the anarcho-transhumanists can't be blamed for not trying to help. They were at every conference and bookfair i was. Personally, I think anarcho-transhumanism is the only transhumanism & Anarcho-transhumanism is the only openly experimental anarchism. I'm on board with that as I am with the development of free jazz and xerox painting in the arts. Bring it on.

Lies the road to take as far as anarchy goes. Appropriated Fullerian-Illichian technology minus the logic of acceleration is quite applicable for anarchy.

Time to turn your fork in the road into a three sided trinary sandwich.

between the three sides of this trinary Toblerone of teleology lies the crunchy hazelnut core of anarcho-anarchy.

You kidding? SE is the astute developer of the trinary computers, poised to overthow binary computing in 2048 or something. Go ask Bannon, he'll confirm to you. It's the 4th historical cycle, bitches! But there's nothing evolutionnist and especially not fascistic in this... NO!

3/10

I'm up on that quatenary quantum computin by nao nikka, wear u at? See u in space time, mime.

"Drugs are certainly techne'."

seriously? marijuana, a plant that grows almost anywhere, is techn... whatever the fuck you said...? fail. like most of your post.

Indicates to us a way forward as to human development.
We continue to evolve as we extend toward the outside :our thoughts ,and our feelings, as we further connect with each other and create new worlds and new peoples.
This can include a cybernetic component as well as artistic and other creative aspects. Azano

It is often assumed, for instance, with her cyborg manifesto, that Haraway is technophilic in the worst of senses; but people shouldn't forget that her position stems from a mitigated ecofeminism. In the breaking down of how women "ought to be"--ecofeminsts said they must be the goddesses they were meant to be--is the deconstructed space of a queering: naturecultures: neither just nature for women nor pure culture for men, but whatever I want to make of the hybrid. It will always look lame depending on how we look at the matter. If we are technophilic, we will see it as not going far enough into transhumanism; if we are technophobic we will see it always, as JZ saw it: a monstrosity from the first step. I think its possible to point out that when species meet is super lame for advocating domestication, yet H's response, reasonable indeed, is that beings that are domesticated are hybrids (naturecultures) too, and might point us away from the masculine death drive (Thanatos) that would destroy nature completely.

Fuck this shit, it's an ansrcho-liberal pipe dream, totally divorced from the massive process of resource extraction and alienation that would make it a reality.

My CPU is a neuroprocessor
because
e=mc squared. =))

Or transhomoerectus. What have you. Cyborgization began with reliance upon external, unembodied, faculties. Transing in this sense is evolution, speciation. An-prims have millions of years worth of ancestry to be resentful of. But they will never be a T-Rex. What they seek is embodied in creatures with fur, claws, fangs. Thus, they will need the transhumanists in order for them to manifest their desires and become something non hominid, non ape. Their lizard brain torments them. Full autonomy will require a genetic lobotomy.

IMO, anarcho-transhumanism.net is kind of a terrible site. I'd recommend Blueshifted. It's got a really good FAQ on @-H+ and a really good reading list. If nothing else, fucking read Xenofeminism.

Summerspeaker's blog that they linked above is also very good. William Gillis' blog is solid as well, although his market anarchism and the problems he has with nihilism (and his bias towards analytic philosophy, yuck) may be off-putting to some. Literally just read his critique of primitivism and get BTFO.

There's also my very spicy and edgy cyber-nihilism.

As an ideological pursuit I see transhumanism as an evolution of Hobbsian ethics not much different to the neo-colonialist global occupancy but tainted with utopianist ideals and extrapolated logistically along the same lines as the Western historical narrative.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
Y
a
d
a
7
H
H
Enter the code without spaces.