Platonism

[sub rosa]

Reply to Daniel

Hello [   ], adding your personal email here, since sadly, the mailinglist will
be/has ended, so just want to be sure you get my reply even if the mailinglist
is no more.

I am replying here, as the directions seemed to be. 

>> But perhaps this experience was meant to be achieved consciously and
>> deliberately, and then to be integrated into our core being? So that if we
>> continuously "pound the drum of god" we'll eventually harm ourselves?
>
> It becomes talisman that prevents connection to reality, so I'd say yes.

Hmm... I wonder if there is any research into this?

Nothing I am aware of but personally, I favor reaching "enlightenment" in a natural state, substance-free, tech-free, gimmick-free.

Do you believe in stretching or eliminating the limitations of nature? Or is
your definition of "nature" so wide as to mean the utmost and final limits of
nature and physics, given what we can do with science?

Or do you view science and technology with suspicion?

It depends. Intuitively, some interventions make more sense than others. Life extension, quality of life, reproductive health and fitness, absolutely. Turning humans into machine-hooked vegetables? Probably not.   

How do you decide who gets to breed and who does not? And what if your values
clash with someone else's values?

People of higher caliber - meaning intelligence, realism, big picture thinkers, natural leaders (and empaths, believe it or not). Creating policies and incentives to prevent the struggling and defective from reproducing requires compassion. Part of that is letting natural selection take its course, with an emphasis on female choice unconstrained by fear of starving. It's a much more finely-tuned eugenic mechanism than male choice. 
     

>> Yes, there is something charming with how we torture ourselves with our ethics,
>> values, choices, and how we consciously choose to give, love, and so on.
>
> Again, who's "we?" People all over the world ... all 144,000 of them?

Most individuals.

We might have some disagreement here. I see little evidence that most individuals wrestle with those kinds of things. Most stay on script. 

> It gets me when people project love on animals: "Oooh, Maxxy loves me!" No it
> doesn't. Maxxy is Pavloving on you, but he would throw you under the bus for a
> piece of ham. Most HINO-s (humans in name only) do the same. They "ham" each
> other. Only an actual Human can love, so protect these people at any cost. A
> smart mind once said "The stupid can't love." Yes, because they're like Maxxy.

Well, actually, it could be argued that humans do the same. 

A majority, probably. The higher-minded ones tend to want to rise above ham.

The only thing we have to go on is the behaviour of animals and other humans. We cannot look into
their brains and feel what they feel. We only have indications and inferences.
But the good thing is that this is enough. We all have the right to our own
feelings, and if I "feel" that Maxxy the dog loves me, then that's alright.
Objectively, only actions, words, inferences, subjectively, that's where the
magic happens!

Oh, definitely. I recognize the right to subjectivity, in fact, I insist on it; but until I see evidence that animals and animal-like humans are capable of experiencing the kind of conscious love that rises above ham, I reserve the right to see it as inferior/primitive type of love.     

Ahh... but I think this rests on a common misunderstanding of transhumanism.
There is nothing forcing in it. Everyone is free to use or not to use any
technology that exists, to prolong life, edit genes, upload themselves into an
AI, or what ever they enjoy. It's about pushing the limits, improving ourselves,
but ultimately, how to do that, which technology to embrace, which technology to
reject, that is up to each and every one of us.

I'd have to read more on those before opining.

But once again, my skepticism towards "choice" in the presence of high social pressures and constraints remains.
Note, for example, attitudes towards smart phone use. When the practice reaches a critical mass, the 'choice' to NOT use it acquires increasingly dire consequences. Choice is never outside of social context, so legitimate alternatives and structures must be created, maintained, and culturally defended.
 

As soon as someone argues for forcing people to accept a certain technology,
then the label (in my opinion) "humanism" is out the window. That would be more
something along the lines of transauthoritarianism or transsocialism.

Forcing is rarely required. Social epidemics basically never fail to deliver which is why a counter-epidemic is necessary for choice to continue to exist. Individuals cannot make atomized choices.     

>> Excellent! Then we are at least 2 misanthropes in the world!
>
> As a misanthrope humanist (palm to head, right?) I don't want any of these already-born humans to suffer. I just want them:
>
> - Far away from me and my walk of life.
> - Prevented from perpetuating poor quality of life and suffering (all over the world, because in high-tech era, the Globe becomes a nut).
>
> While they're here, I want them to be OK, but I do not think they should be
> prioritized over higher-minded humans, since that causes the largest amount of
> unnecessary waste and suffering - as those are the most stoic but also the
> most sensitive, creative and most likely producers of good.

Here I have more a feeling of indifference, coupled with a pinch of cynicism,
when it comes to the common man. You are a good woman!

I can't have a feeling of indifference knowing how much harm, waste, disruption, destruction and obstruction the overgrown masses of lower humans create unintentionally. This is where I can relate to frustrations with the "lolberts" (lol). We can't out-of-sight-out-of-mind the consumptive masses. They are ultimately innocent in their unintentional harm, but that doesn't change reality. This is why I want them well, then out.   

I can't think of myself as a "good woman" since I don't subscribe to universal conceptions of morality. Maybe someone effective who refuses gratuitous cruelty. Otherwise, I may be gold for some, disaster for others, it all depends on "truths," interpretations and goodness-of-fit. I am a fanatic of freedom of association and compatibilism in a wider and deeper sense. We can only be "good" to birds-of-a-feather.