the how and why

this is another past journal entry, composed during the throes of thesis writing. it's a bit esoteric, but hopefully some of the links (and later posts) will clarify it some for now. at some point, i will also figure out a way to publish (or link to a published version of) the thesis for more precise reference.


it's not so much the what of technology that should concern us (of western cultural descent) -- but the how and why.

granting that the natural meta-evolution of replicators includes a propensity towards a digitally-encoded replication stage -- an 'immortality' such that the most information transmitted with the smoothest efficiency is attained --, we must be prepared to deal with the possibility of an 'enhanced consciousness' -- that is, a merging of human and computer memetic-replicative capabilities to comprise a digitally-encoded medium via electronica with a strong biological and spiritually meaningful base. it's severely difficult for me to imagine anything less "natural" ('Natural,' if you will) than what would consist of a complete reformation of our technological progress (perhaps including at least a little technological abolishment even) to where Nature could regain a dominant role and influence, as it does in 'less developed' communities. however, i'm thinking that i also need to seriously consider the power and signficance of this forming integrationist philosophy, and reflect on more 'leftitst' perspectives concerning the environmental movement. for the non-environmentalist and the extreme (or at least maybe conservative) environmentalist have directly opposed agendas and views -- but this opposition best manifests the dichotomous argument therein. one sees environmental issue as an obligated requirement, and the other sees it as a necessary and avoidable standard. while i obviously lean towards the latter, i recognize that neither perspective embraces the advantageously efficient and mutally beneficial integration of economy, ehtics, and the environment. neither extremist side is sufficient, and no middle way could ever remedy a phenomenon based on a dualistic illusion.

the model must be transcended and the actualized agenda expedited by the integrationaist method. only in this way can Transhumanism be acceptable -- in fact Transhumanism can be a truly beneficial transition in the the hands of 'more developed' communities provided that indeed a major reformation does happen, where responsibility is enacted by every individual. it must be a responsibility for the psychological, physical, spiritual, and environmental health of the self (as far as a model 'self' is the center of an individual's conceptual rudiments), for our influence and power and wealth. when true responsibility is underway, 'rights' (as in human rights) will be an obsolete tool for justice (which continues today to ring with little other than a tone of egoistic and egocentric justification -- for the sake of a "controllable social order"). it will be its own means and end for simultaneous betterment of self and neighbor -- for it will be, finally, (as the greatest mystics and miracle-workers have seen it) an integration of the two. (altruism and egoism too contain the extremist absurdity of opposition dualism that is neither here nor there in enlightening us with a realistic plan for action.)

so, Transhumanism may hold some potential for global improvment if it is mutualistically initiated with the integrationist manner of health and conceptualization (thought/action).