When I was a child I had a vague notion of history. I remember trying to comprehend it.  History looked like an expanse of stained and yellowing paper with a dark timeline running through the middle of it. Cars were invented sometime in the past…sometime after knights fought for kings but probably before the TV was invented. The Revolutionary War was just before the Civil War because thats how we learned it in school–not much happened between so the times became condensed in my mind. And surely it was a long long time ago that people didn’t have light bulbs, air conditioning, toilets (seriously, how did people live without toilets!), and cars. I mean, at least they had trains for a long time before cars. And telephones too.  All of this was in some grand past long dead and incomprehensible. Just a timeline.

Some quick facts. It is 2010. The personal computer did not exist thirty years ago. Schools were still segregated 50 years ago. World War 2 was some 70 years ago. The great depression was some 80 years ago, and World War 1 was about 90 years ago. Slavery existed 150 years ago.

The lightbulb was invented in 1880. Before that everyone used candles and after that it took many many years for lights to become widespread.  That was130 years ago.  Think about that for a moment. The lightbulb changed the character of our existence forever. We could go to sleep any time. We could work at night, live at night. Before, darkness was impenetrable except for our feeble attempts with fire and our prayers to the stars and moon that they would shine brighter and light our way. Now we live by the lights we have artificially created.

Right around the same time, 1885, the first widely recognized internal combustion engine was built. Again, only 125 years ago. Before that you hardly could leave you town. When you did you had to travel long distances slowly or expensively. You had to get on a horse or ride in a carriage or walk. Your neighbors were the people you knew because you couldn’t know anyone else. Think of how much time we spend in cars. Think of the places we go, with such speed and consistency. Take all that away. Only a 125 years ago. Two average lifespans. And of course automobiles weren’t even common until after Ford, in the 1900s, and didn’t become a real part of every day life until even later. Yes, we had trains before but they were still quite different. And this is saying nothing of airplanes, which allow us to travel across the world in hours instead of months or even years.

Should I speak also of telephones and the fact that before we could only talk to people whom we had traveled long distances (quite slowly) to see or had carefully written to? I won’t even mention computers. Or the thousands of other integral technologies in our lives that we don’t really notice but which readily shape our lives. Polyester. Plastic. Air conditioning. And so on.

The industrial revolution occurred around the late 1700s, with the invention of the cotton gin, steam engine, and the use of iron. It really picked up steam (no pun intended) around the 1850s. 160 years ago. How long is that for a world to completely change character? In such a sense as it has…such an extreme sense. Its incomprehensible. Life as those people knew it is gone, perhaps forever. We either find ourselves entirely unable to comprehend such an existence or completely aghast at the thought of it.

Such a short time and such change. The whole nature of our experience stands altered by what we have created.

This is, again, the sort of thing I seek to study in my life–the way that the life we have created for ourselves frames and shapes the nature of our existence. Trying to comprehend the existence of pre-1850s in nearly impossible. I was fascinated tonight by Pride and Prejudice for that reason alone, nevermind the fact that its a Jane Austen romance. The world of then is not the world of now and a mere 150 years (200 in the case of Austen) separates us from that existence. How things have changed. How all of life has changed! What is this existence that we are living now!? How absurd and how fascinating!

So I had a good convo with an acquaintance of mine today while I was about to leave the coffee shop I had spent a few hours working in. He holds regular transhumanist meetings with a couple of friends of his but is a rather thoughtful guy. We had a mutual discussion about the state of affairs within the transhumanist world that brought together a lot of thoughts I’ve been having.

I’ve started doing the first of what I hope to be a longer series of textual and conversation based analyses of various discourses around technology and I am seeing a lot of the classic transhumanist themes and strategies coming through quite strongly even in common discourse on the Internet. I have begun to see how they are developing a certain outlook on the world and way of speaking that I find rather troublesome. To be clear, I find the the transhuman movement to be particularly important for my own reasons–but these reasons do not seem to be the reasons that most people have. My philosophical reasons for pursuing these thoughts differ quite drastically, as does my feelings on the rhetorical and contextual methods used to discuss them. Although I am trying to separate myself from making judgments on the stuff I am studying (and failing), I fear that the transhumanist movement, as it is forming now, is flawed and dangerous. Unfortunately, the leaders of the movement (Ray Kurzweil, Audrey DeGrey, Robert Frietas, even the more serious Nick Bostram) in many ways fit right into this mentality and discourse that I am talking about. They created it.

What precisely am I referring to? A few things:

1) The absolute insane propensity for scenario building. And I mean every one of these people do it.  A large part of their discourse involves constantly building and cycling narratives about what is and isn’t going to happen. This is important and distressing because A) they all speak as if they know what they are talking about and assume a psuedo-scientific narrative style, even naming objects and attempting to integrate their little knowledge of science into the story. B) This knowledge is usually rather limited and often has holes in it. Scientists who do not have the knowledge and authority to speak on topics beyond their field feel free to anyways. C) They often skip by enormous steps in either logical or scientific progress–such as speculating about nanomachines when we haven’t even created many viable carbon nanotube applications. I read one comment of a guy who was demanding we create a way to make bricks from everyday dust and dirt so we’ll have a way to have materials in our space colonies–as if that is the biggest obstacle to space colonization for us.  D) This creates a melding of science fiction and nonfiction, so that they essentially become the same. This is dangerous on many levels, most importantly because it toys with the reality of practical technologies and assumes that speculation is what is going to come about. When fiction starts leaking into reality, how will we make good, sane policy judgments? For example, how could we make good regulation of nanoparticles if our legislators are thinking they’ve got nanobots around the corner?

2) My second problem lies in the way that traditional ideas and mentalities have continued on into this mindset. These people want to live forever. They want to become semi-gods. It is the same mindset that we’ve had for ages that consists of basically two things: A) Progress is essential and is measured by the systematic replacement of the old with the new and B) Our bodies suck and we ought to do whatever we can to replace/control/manipulate them. These subsume an even deeper conception of  a world in which the purpose of life is to survive longer and live more comfortably in the process.  My question is this: WHY? Why do you want to live forever? What will you do then? If you can’t live with this world, what makes you think you’ll be able to live in this futuristic one? If you aren’t satisfied with this body what makes you think you’ll be satisfied with an enhanced one? The philosophical conceptions that are driving these people are the very ones that, when their end is achieved, will implode and leave them meaningless.  They’ll have their “transcendence” of sorts but for what?

3)  This is the other thing. They pretend as if they know what these things will be like. And even though they still know so little about the actual nature of what it would mean to live forever or what substance our bodies would have to take, they desire it anyways. And not just living forever. In this discourse I constantly hear ppl say things like “I can’t wait to upgrade my brain!”  But they have no idea what it would be like, how it would change their experience or screw with their whole existence. Its an enormous leap to make prior to knowing the nature of the stuff

4) This is all from the insane trust in science that these people have. Science will figure it out. Science will get us there, no matter what. It is an insane technophilia driven by the insistence that, with enough time, we’ll iron out all the details. But we better hurry up cause the technology needs to be here before I die. This makes it like a race to the black abyss–but its ok, science will catch us.

Look, we don’t know what is going to happen or what it is going to be like. Yes, some amount of scenario building and speculation is needed. Yes, its fun. But the convoluted reality, the twisted up ideals of classic christian struggle over these evil bodies, this psuedo-spiritual quest for the final ideal–these things completely miss the substance of what could be a true transhuman movement. If they want to be transhuman they have to stop thinking like normal humans. And they can do that today. Its part of what Nietzsche was getting at before we took him and twisted his ideals all to hell. More intelligent, smart, careful, critical creators of value.  Technology has already done enough to us today. We don’t need to be talking so much about this uncertain and theoretical future. The best thing we can do to bridge ourselves to that future, and guide and control it and make it what we want and not what forces beyond our control dictate, is to look at our society now and adjust our rhetoric and philosophies to fit this changing world, as we can make sense of it in the present. This, I believe, will yield a transhuman discourse, but one vastly different from the sort that circulates now.

I want to pause briefly from my late night studies to make an observation of some importance.  I have been struggling in my mind to establish strongly the connection of a great interest of mine, Rhetoric, to the other two branches of my study, philosophy and technology studies. This was really important because, well, rhetoric is the field I’ll be trained most heavily in and wherein I will teach and have to do a bulk of my work. I have known it connected strongly but I haven’t been able to articulate it the best, either in words or in my own mind. But as I sit here and read Aristotle’s Rhetoric it begins to become clear.

The technology studies-philosophy connection is clear because of what I call the “technology of philosophy” as opposed to the “philosophy of technology.” That is, that philosophy itself is molded by our technology because our technology makes up the core of our world and expands and shapes our ability to comprehend it.

This in itself assumes an anti-realist or relational knowledge point of view, that there is no such thing as “Subjective” or “objective.” Rather, while there may be a real Truth, our work consists entirely of constructing views of this truth that are merely heuristics or convenient ways of viewing the world–which might even work to, what do you know, make more technology.

In a world such as this, then, truth itself becomes constructed and construcatable. But how do we prevent ourselves from heading towards the terrifying territory of complete relativism where we lose sight completely of any concept of truth? Am I saying we just make everything up? No! It is in our relationship TO the world and our interaction with it that we create conceptions of the world and of truth. What is rhetoric? Narrowly defined in the greek sense it is about persuasion. In the broader sense, rhetoric is human ability to bring about action or force within the world. Given the existential view of our essence or being as more fundamental to anything else–as Sartre says, “we are made through our actions”–then we are essentially shaping truth and ourselves through our forms of rhetoric.

It is essential then as we move through the difficulties ahead in redefining ourselves within a new technological landscape that we formulate and enact new ways of being in the world yet still retain some element of ground, some relation to understanding, to the so-called “truth” of things. How we work out this truth is essential to our whole existence and to the perpetual progression of things. Thus rhetoric is intimately tied up in technology studies and philosophy, is even the core of the whole project. It therefore makes sense that I put it at the center of my studies.

Plus, rhetoric will get me an academic job easier than the other two

Read this book, seriously. Dazzle Gradually, by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan

I grew up with the personal computer; it developed with me, flourishing from its elementary state in the late 1980s to the expansive encompassing, life-altering machines of today.  As we grew up together, I was increasingly put off by the incapability of the cultural and social knowledge and thought being instilled in me to grasp, understand, and live in this world. My upbringing as a Mormon demonstrated particularly strong residual mindsets from the past—a past in which we lived in completely different environments than the ones we reside in today.  Well over a hundred years ago, Nietzsche pronounced “God is dead,” declaring that human beings had outgrown the need to look to a God and an afterlife to cope with their existence. Likewise, I find myself increasingly saying and thinking “This way of thinking is dead, it must be replaced.” We are in the paradigm shift of all paradigm shifts. Our technological world has already evolved past the ideas and conceptions that we use to live in it. Either we shift with it and catch up or we lose ourselves.

This is perhaps what makes Dazzle Gradually such a tremendous selection of essays; it challenges many of the basic assumptions that we live by in our everyday lives, both ones that have developed recently and more fundamental ones we know go as far as the written record. Of all the chapters that have instilled this impression thus far, the “Welcome to the Machine” chapter encompasses most acutely the essence of our need to change. In there are two incredibly important challenges to our assumptions: that there is no such thing as artificial and that human life must change to an ecology stable one if it is to make the transition from a pioneer species to a climax community. It seems that such changes in our basic way of thinking are essential to our continued existence.

While there are a lot more pervasive, subtle and deep flaws in our thinking, the conception of the “artificial” has been one of frustration for me for some time now.  This assumption reflects the deeper rooted assumption that we are somehow separate from nature and, as such, opposed to it. It also reflects the classic Judeo-Christian conception that man is to rule the earth and all other things are his subjects. In reality, there is no such thing as ‘artificial.’ We are merely part of the earth, and our technology is not separate or unique (except in its complexity) from the natural course of things. For this reason alone, I wanted to cheer as I read this chapter. It is a relief to see a scientist point out the way that technology was fundamentally a part of nature and that the process of technological development is not something new.

It seems that this chapter captures the essential paradox of our current “green movement.” The cry of the environmentalists contain this contradictory notion that we out to return to a time before, to more primitive forms of farming, to more “natural” methods of production, and that technology and “tampering with nature” is the source of our problems. In truth, however, the movement we ought to having is one more adequately captured by Margulis and Sagan: a movement from a pioneer race to a climax community that forms its own ecological cycles and balance within the world that it has altered and essentially created. The two ideas, the traditional (and radical) environmental movement and the one presented in DG, are so fundamentally and significantly different yet their expression is so difficult to disentangle. Our tendency as humans to dichotomize into black and whites would inevitably lump the two of them together. I have seen this acutely as I’ve studied emerging technologies, especially genetically modified foods. The opposition to these “frakenfoods” has been so incredibly frustrating because it embraces all the ways of thinking of the old paradigm, valorizing nature and the past, assuming humans are separate, and that there is something “artificial” about our existence.

The truth is very much closer to what is expressed in this chapter. We are already tied up in our technology, which is a natural progression of tools as used by a pioneer species. We are changing the landscape of the world but this is natural. However, we are also reaching the point where we have to make the transition from a pioneer species to a climax community. Therefore, ecological thinking is essential, but also essential is for us to evolve our thinking simultaneously, adopting new ideas and conceptions of the world that will allow us to live in such a community. These changes go far beyond those expressed in this chapter. It is my hope to try to identify them and weed them out as much as possible in my lifetime that way we can continue to evolve as a race.

No, I am not connecting the three together, I just wanted to toss a few thoughts on here about how they connect to things I’ve been thinking about.  I already posted in much more detail about how Kierkegaard and Camus relate to my thoughts on philosophical suicide and insanity…want to make some more connections like that.

1) Nietzsche’s conception of the “Overman”

I am really a fan of this concept; I think combined with all my thoughts on technology it proves to be an incredible idea that is amazingly applicable to today.  People need to read more Nietzsche. Yes, read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it will change your life!  The concept of the Overman/Superman (depending on the translation, but Superman invokes visions of flying men in tights…) is the equivalent of what I like to call the Ascendant. The Ascendant is my (well, Curt and I’s) term and is more directly tied to technology than Nietzsche’s Overman, but they have the same end. I, in fact, plan to take a LOT from Nietzsche know when I write more about The Ascendant later on (the names are even similar, invoking the height metaphor). There are a few differences, however, one of which is particularly meaningful.  Nietzsche’s Overman is one who has overcome  both traditional forms of virtue and himself to become a creator of new values and meaning. The Overman lives a life designated by his own purpose, freed to some extent from others, and, as the individual, proceeds forward with his life through his own virtue–a virtue only applicable to him. Also, the Overnman believes strongly in the earth and in his own body (N. would say they say “Yes” to this world).  My difference, I think, is that the Ascendant concept includes the idea of the Overman, but comments further on what it means to be the Overnman. In other words, you are never quite “over” so to speak, but are always ascending.  This does not mean in a judgmental sense; it is meant in the sense that people who are Ascendant live life for the progression and exploration of experience (N. would say “creating”). Essentially, I think of the Ascendant as someone who, having attained their own virtues and meaning, now proceeds forth in that meaning to enjoy and explore the possibilities of existence.

2) Heidegger’s concept of “Idle Talk.”

I love it. I just wanted to make a note here about it because its such a good concept but I’m not likely to forget it. However, I do not feel like explaining it. Only this, that this concept of idle talk is being compounded by our technologies. If we really want to exist in a technologically advanced world we must once again remember the maxim “enhancement not replacement” and remember to use our technologies to allow us for deeper and more authentic talk. Instead, newer technologies give us the opportunity to be even more inauthentic than ever; it does not need to be so. For instance, I have Gehrke (my advisor) on Facebook and we’ve shared some substantial links and comments that led us to really good conversations later on. Same can be the case with texts, blogs, short columns, etc. Depth! We can’t lose depth!

Oh, and Heidegger now officially gives me the philosophical justification for hating small talk. Thank you Heidegger, I now forgive you for being so difficult to read. (continue reading…)