[MD] Transhumanism

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Krimel,

Krimel said:
To use your (Rorty's?) conversation and vocabulary 
metaphor surely there are often reasons to hold separate 
caucuses for purposes of precision within the various 
branches of knowledge but this does not mean there aren't 
good reasons to maintain and improve vocabularies that 
promote cross talk. When we find the kind of crosstalk that 
can provide connections from roots to stems that is what I 
would call metaphysics.

Matt:
This, I take it, is the largest point in the area--the one that 
rains down on the other smaller, particular things--and it is 
one we agree on.  (The caucus metaphor is great.)  And I 
think agreeing on it pretty much washes away anything else 
in this particular area (like the question of "continuous or 
discontinuous?" which I take to be a debate not worth 
having once we agree on the larger point: it just becomes 
one of emphasis, because in another context I could have 
just as easily taken the "continuous" stance).

Krimel said:
We don't talk often because I think our interests are so 
divergent. I am often disappointed with the venom in my 
own writing style but seem unable to detach from it. It 
doesn't help when people who don't seem to me possessed 
of either depth or breadth make dogmatic assertions or hold 
ignorance up as a virtue. I welcome thoughtful criticism but 
having said that I have to admit to having my own defensive 
streak that is miles wide.

Matt:
I keep trying to use "divergent interests" as an explanation 
for a lot of conflict in the MD, particularly when it's 
generated by me, but people don't generally like that 
answer for some reason (so that I've sensed).

And I think everyone get's defensive sometimes.  God 
knows I do.  What is optimal is a low pressure environment 
so when one piston gets overheated, the other pistons 
don't, too.  We don't really have that here.

Krimel said:
I recently tried to engage some of my high school 
classmates in a political discussion. After a bit of heat at 
the onset I tried to step back and direct the conversation 
to the differences between not what but how liberals think. 
You know compare worldviews....

Matt:
Geez-ez, where'd you grow up?  Actually, come to think 
of it, I've been in a bubble most of my adult life.  I can't 
imagine what people from my high school think now...  Did 
you find it easier to talk about worldview than details?  I 
don't talk about politics enough with outsiders to have 
developed enough experiential evidence, but there's a big 
difference between the two, and I haven't a sense of 
which is more important to talk about.  Because I think 
you have to make a distinction in practice: in the 
short-term, details--the what--are more important, but in 
the long-term, worldview--the how.  Which is more 
important to talk about in the fleeting conversations we 
have in life, and which is easiest?

You mentioned all the nutty stuff your classmates thought, 
and it reminded me of every time I drive home with my 
girlfriend from San Diego (a long drive in a nameless 
direction, though I'll give you a hint: not west).  We always 
leave San Diego talking about religion, because she's what 
we call a "militant atheist," recovering from an oppressive 
religious upbringing which she made up in her head (don't 
ask me why), and her best friend in San Diego has recently 
come out of the closest as an evangelical Christian (nicest 
girl).  So far I've found myself in the weird position of being 
the moderator, nudging my girlfriend when she starts to 
say things that she half the time doesn't even realize are 
rude to believers.

Such a reflective beginning usually ends (after 7 hours) 
with her saying moderately insane things, like "Why don't 
we just bust in on the Mormon compounds and take these 
child abusers down?"  "What, and just throw the Bill of 
Rights out the window?"  "Well, just this one time...we 
know they're doin' it..."  So for the last hour I do my best 
to justify liberalism, a human rights culture, and the rule of 
law--which she damn well already believes in--before 
finally going, "Egh--you're just being contrary aren't you?  
You're just sounding crazy to see what I'll say."  "Yeah, 
probably."

You go through life talking to everybody you meet 
differently.  I don't believe in God, think a lot of 
Christianity hocus-pocus death-denial, but why on earth 
would I want to get into a theological discussion with a 
sweet, kind person who just wants to help the starving 
children in Africa and whose 29-year-old brother was 
recently crushed to death underneath a semi-trailor?  And 
being there and cognizant and _able_, why shouldn't I run 
screen for beliefs I don't believe in when the objective is 
the minimization of cruelty--my girlfriend's to her best 
friend?

The cruelty of the articulate over the inarticulate is 
something intellectuals don't often consider, I think.  When 
the inarticulate battle amongst themselves, I think they 
sometimes cause fires they aren't aware of.  But the 
articulate should know better.  And what's more, the 
inarticulate know when they're being bullied.  I think the 
American trend that Richard Hofstadter called 
"anti-intellectualism" is the revolt of the inarticulate against 
the articulate.  And there not exactly wrong on the 
personal level.  In the short-run, the articulate need to do 
better at talking to the inarticulate.  The onus is on us, 
and we are horrible at it much of the time.  It is only in the 
long-run where we are unarguably right: we need to make 
everyone articulate.

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4