Sunday, August 13, 2006

Kill all Humans!

In response to my article on the hand-walking apelike Kurdish retards of Turkey I received this well thought out response that I feel strongly enough about that I wanted to make it my article of the day. Remember, just coming to my site proves you are the best of the best, smartest of the smartest, so I trust that you will get yourself a beverage and read both his argument and my own. And please, if anyone else wants to contribute, I would be ecstatic to hear from others with a capacity to reason. And as I side, yes I love cartoons - "America's only native artform..." Anyone recognize the quote? If you do, can you finish it?

A Response from “Blow it all up" Mad Stan

If it can be done, it can be undone.

Also, I kind of hate to point this out because I like your style and respect your opinions...You attribute their 'condition' to being a retardation, likely due to INBREEDING.

I agree fully. I also believe in broken genes (multi generational pedophiles for examples, or ebonics speaking inspite of multi billion dollar tax funded public schooling).

However this reallity hurts. Because...it means we both understand that inbreeding is BAD. Not only is it morally bad, but its also genetically bad. (btw it likely started out being concidered morally bad BECAUSE survival instinct told us it was GENETICALY bad)

Here goes the ouch part...the reallity of INBREEDING, and 'shallow gene pools', is that...truly homogeneous socieites would eventually degrade into mongloid freak shows.

Need proof...look at africa, or 'hill billies'or mexicans... and more. I hate to be logical sometimes. But it seems to me that race mixing is inevitable to avoid retardation, and other disorders resulting from deteriorating DNA.

Also it seems to me that whether you believe in god or in nature or whatever...that race mixing has ALWAYS been happening, and DOES happen, and likely will continue to happen.

The thing is this...
1) quallity vs quantity
2) its supposed to happen slowly

Furthermore, to hold the idea that not all people are the same, and , all white people are all the same...in ones mind simultaneously as truth, is doublethink.

The saxons are not the same as the nords. The indo's are not the same as the saxons. So on and so forth.Each 'white' race is ACTUALLY different from each other. Which means if we are to be picky about things like race mixing then we should also shun racial mixing between...nords and saxons.

Which leads us inevitably back to square one...shallow gene pools.Pan Aryanism, not that im knocking it mind you, is natures warning to all 'white tribes'..."YOUR GENE POOLS ARE GETTING TOO SHALLOW, combine with each other instead of fighting with each other".

Well in say 50 generations, wont this 'new' hybrid white man, "pan aryan" man, also eventually run into the "shallow gene pool" problem?

At that time though, there wont be any 'white tribes' to assimilate/freshen up the DNA. They will all have already assimilated and made the white tribes into one race.

So pray tell, when the day comes that the 'pan aryan' 'race' reach's the 'shallow gene pool predicament'...where will they turn to then for fresh DNA?

So what we see (if we set jewish inspired religons aside)is that nature/gods solution to shallow gene pools which result in retardation, is "inter tribal breeding", with ones own "relatively similar" neighbors.

This is the phase were are currently in, and possibly nearing the end of.

So what happens when ALL tribes have interbred to the point that they no longer exist and instead are now one single genetic race?

The genes will start deteriorating yet again. Its inevitable. Then we'll see inbreeding and retardation flourishing again.

What then? Inter breeding between nations. Inter planetary breeding?Inter Species breeding? Or a whole planet full of ... people walking on their hands, named...planet Corky.

Maybe SCIENCE will one day solve this problem, without the need to import DNA, we can only hope.

""I’m not just racist, I am anti-human! And I am damn proud of the fact.""

I think hate of the human race is the highest form of racism a person can reach. Hate based on skin color is a mundane waste of such a valuable force of energy.

Hate based on the behavoir of another race is justifiable but still not...the peak.

Hate for the human species...it cant get any higher than that can it? Also hatred of humanity is more honest and pure. "racial hate", implies that one race is good whilst the other is bad, or it makes allowance and excuse for a % of subhuman quallity within a given race.

"Anti-Human Racism", covers EVERYTHING EVERYONE. Thus is why I say...'more honest and pure'. Maybe people like you and possibly me, are on the evolutionary cutting edge of "racism in its final most potent form", hatred of ALL humans.

I think you said somehwere that you enjoy cartoons. Have you seen Batman Beyond? Theres an 'enemy' named 'Mad Stan'. Hes a hulking white guy that is well...a suicide bomber that never seems to die, and always causes destruction.

He says "mans problem is too much information, we are suffering from information overload, the human race is fucked up, we should all die, blow it all up" so on and so forth.

What I have always wondered is whether 'mad' stan is 'mad' as in, mentally unstable, or is 'mad stan', sanely accutely aware of reality and thus is MAD as in angry.

All any of us can do in the end is push forward 110% in which ever direction we see fit. I sincerely hope you will continue to push forward, I enjoy your style very much and would hate to see you quit pushing forward, in your unique way.

Sincerely,"Blow it all up" Mad Stan


My Response

Dear, Mr. Mad Stan:

Your post sent me into psychic orgasms of delight! It was beautifully reasoned and thoughtfully rendered. Please, never be hesitant to disagree with me, I only ask that if anyone does disagree they put even just half the effort into their response that you did. Perhaps you know what it is like to be surrounded by people who feel the topics we are discussing are taboo, horrifying, and/or wrong. They shut their minds down as soon as they start considering race, breeding, moral relativity, and anything but simpering adoration of defectives. I do not know your full views on these topics, but being able to intellectually express and defend one’s views is incredibly rare these days, so please (I beg of you!) keep up the good work!

There is much in your post that I agree with, but we might have started out with a misunderstanding. I am not one who believes that the white race is the end of evolution, I simply admire the achievements and aesthetics of white people, and being one, I wish to see my own kind succeed. Natural selection for the better human will only take the species so far. Breeding the better human (eugenics) can take us further, but ultimately designing our species is the future of evolution. The question of what base material we use (which human stock) and what our design aesthetic will be is up to those of us brave enough to envision the Brave New World!

To quote every B-Movie robot of the past 60 years: KILL ALL HUMANS. I despise modern human beings with a revulsion that borders on what I believe our city-building human ancestors must have felt toward their troglodyte, cave dwelling contemporaries. Those alive today who fear science, put moral restrictions on research, who benefit from applied science but are avid technoclasts, are the cave men who refused to move to the cities. I am of course over-simplifying and using hyperbole, but I believe that exaggerated analogy conveys the disconnect between post-humans (of which I consider myself one) and humans. Post-humans will provide the transitional leap between modern humans and the species that shall be derived from modern humans. And when I say a new species, I truly mean a species in the sense that no retrograde breeding would be possible.

A dissent: I believe your expressed views of outbreeding and inbreeding are too simplified. But without the ability to legally apply eugenic principles over hundreds of years, we can never truly be sure how much outbreeding and inbreeding the human population can withstand or benefit from.

I would like to point you to an article that describes how two species of butterfly were interbred producing reproductively viable offspring, something that was thought next to impossible in the animal kingdom. What we like to think of as species and subspecies today are probably very sloppy, inaccurate delineations that point to our astounding lack of insight into how nature pursues the objectives of maintaining, restraining, and promoting inbreeding and outbreeding. There is a middle road to this dichotomy that should be thought of as selective breeding, which is pointed to in the butterfly article, and which involves trying to return to an original population if one deviates, and the impulse to preserve population isolation.

Isolation and inbreeding create populations that differ from their common ancestor. If an isolated population survives, it reaches a point in which selective breeding preserves the characteristics isolated, but if the population is large enough (and should natural selection be permitted to carry off the enfeebled inbred) the population can thrive. Given enough time, isolated populations will become new species, and breeding into ancestrally related populations will fail to produce reproductively viable offspring, and eventually will cease to produce offspring at all (once the number of chromosomes becomes different you can bet no further breeding will occur, hah!). Thus inbreeding is not “bad” either biologically or morally under natural conditions that prevent direct familial inbreeding (conditions like familial disaffinity) and that weed out those offspring that have expressed biologically undesirable recessive traits.

Outbreeding is thought of as a magical panacea that counters inbreeding but this is preposterous. It can mask a recessive trait, but then only selective breeding to achieve expression of the dominant trait can eliminate the presence of the recessive trait. In other words, let’s say that blind rabbits have two (bb) genes for blindness, and yet they can outbreed with sighted rabbits (BB). Their offspring will be carriers (Bb) of the blind trait. They must continue to breed into the (BB) population for generations to progressively eliminate the recessive blind trait. And should the hybrids interbreed with one another they have equal chances of producing blind offspring and sighted offspring. In other words, outbreeding doesn’t cure the negative effects of inbreeding, death does! And it is still possible among animals that an inbred population of sufficient size can thrive, as we see with almost all purebred domestic animals.

And speaking of outbreeding, it also runs the danger of diluting a desirable trait. IF blacks are mentally inferior, and IF whites are mentally superior, and IF these traits are inherited, then mixing of these two subspecies (for let’s not kid ourselves, races are the same thing as subspecies, check the dictionary) will produce diluted offspring lacking the adaptive advantages of both parents. Taking just pigmentation as a guide, the mulatto will not survive as well in sunny tropical climates or cloudy northern climates as their respective parents would, plain and simple.

The throwback Kurds we discussed are the result of familial inbreeding and resistance to letting nature take its proper course and wipe out such throwbacks. And keep in mind that animal populations cull their own as part of nature taking its proper course. Animals abandon defectives, or in some cases eat them to recycle the wasted materials. But I would not go so far as to recommend Swiftian child consumption, abortion and infanticide of undesirables if far enough. Still, I argue that these Kurds are not expressing traits from their ancestry anymore than the dog-faced boy is giving a glimpse of our ancestry – that was the point of the post I made regarding that story.

But let no one else’s reason sway you if you can reason your own course. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes. Fortune favors the bold. This response itself is an example of information overload, but it is up to us to decide which information we want to receive and which we want to reject. I hope that this response is worthy of your receipt and I would be thrilled to correspond with you or like minded individuals who can contribute to our consideration of these topics.

But above all I want to make this clear: By my reckoning, the White Race is not chosen or divine. Anything that makes it worth saving or promoting is determined by its admirers and is not preordained to be found irrefutably justified. Also, the future species to be derived from humans, which we who are post-human will usher in, will look with disdain upon their ancestors, as we would look at a chimp urinating into its own mouth. I reassert: Death to Humans! And add: Hail the Post-Human!

9 comments:

  1. Personally? As a sentient meat bag i think this butterfly could be used as an argument for either side. It's too early too tell what sort of freakish horrors might evolve from it.

    Your final paragraph was well said.
    As for my personal ideologies; the next level, next incarnation, next mutation, whatever we end up having to call it...I dont care how it happens. I only care that it does.

    No idea, no possibility that can lead to the birth must be over looked. If evolution towards perfection is correct, universaly as it appears to be, then the ultimate goal is the... ULTIMATE 'being'.

    I believe less that the idea of the ultimate sentient entity, was something some human dreamed up. I believe it was already long at work. In fact...since the beginning.

    A few rare humans have caught the wave and had limited vision with regards to the theoretical application of their glimpse into a larger world they could hardly comprehend.

    As such, meat bag ego drivin trivialities such as...bias,race,hair color, heigth, etc whatever...all mean nothing.

    I submit, the only thing that does matter is the fullfillment of our quest...our place in the cosmic scheme of ever growing ever improving, towards some thing we call perfection...is all that matters. Damn the means.

    A thought, everything man has man falls apart eventually and somehow.
    How then in mans arrogance does he believe he alone can create the Ultra Entity?

    I believe the universe will decide IF, WHERE, WHEN, and HOW...such a thing will come to exist. In the universal goal of evolution towards perfection, anything is possible, and everything is permissable. Whether i like it or not.

    I hope that answers it all. As far as my views. But my views and my personal feelings sometimes conflict, because unfortunately i am a meat bag.

    I can see some portion of what lies ahead, but inevitably i HAVE TO live the here and now.

    So I hate some things, and love some things. Have some trivial opinions for trivial issues.

    Hail! The Post-human!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Mad Stan:

    Once again, that was very well spoken. I am delighted to read your response.

    Colossal egoism seems to me to be a prerequisite of the ultimate being as you call it, the perfection that will result from evolution. The reproductive drive is ridiculously strong for all forms of what we call life, and even exists on the molecular level among things science does not consider living. Lions killing the cubs of their predecessors once they take over the pride may seem distasteful to modern, decadent human sensibilities, but it smacks of an innate, primitive, instinctual egoism.

    In many human mythologies, God(s) created man in his/their own image. Does it not seem only natural then post-humans (those who would like to play at being God rather than worshipping God) would want to create the next emanation in theirs? For the post-human, the imprecision of nature’s reproduction cannot create the perfect being quickly enough or (more importantly!) with the same aesthetic sensibilities egoism demands.

    I wouldn’t trust the universe to get anything right in my lifetime, or in a million of my lifetimes. We owe nothing to impersonal forces, not even respect. Egoism, in this sense, is no liability.

    Victory to the Post-Human!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your PoV is valid. My PoV is that I wont pretend to know from where and what it shall arise, it will make itself known to us at the appropriate time.

    No I dont trust natures randomness either. However I have more 'faith' in the 'un-adulturated' mathmatic alterations of the universe to itself, than I do in human born ideologies.

    Calrification:

    Human PoV= Water is the tears of angels little johnny, if you study eugenics youll rot in hell and all the angel tears will fall on you.

    Posthuman PoV= Class:H2O Functions: See Archive

    Uber PoV= Let the lower life forms haggle over it, as is their lot. I already know the truth.


    Perhaps you and I perceive 'ego' a little differently.

    Ego to me can be summed up in words like these; arrogance, gluttony, greed etc.

    The ultimate evolutionary form of 'ego' I believe can be summed up in the story of Narcissus.

    It has been this units observation that people possessed by such facets of ego/sentience/awareness generally tend to be ... a weak link.

    Someone possessed by this type of ego will ultimately choose their own personal self pleasuring over the greater cosmic goal.

    Absolutely true, natures organic sloppy way of getting to the point is ... agonizingly slow, but it is also time tested.

    My point was, we think TOO highly of our species if we believe whole heartedly that WE ALONE, have the power to usher in the next phase. Self assuredness is good, but when it crossess the line over to decadent self pleasuring, everything falls apart.

    I beleive we have many historical examples of this in 'human' history. Heres an illustration....

    Gay Pride, is it earned deserved pride or is it egomania disguised as accomplishment worthy of praise? Ego.

    This is what I had refered to as being the limited vision of the people of the past.

    Their ideologies were riddled with self centralized thought. They placed MAN as the 'pivitol point'. To them, the ultimate being was a human.

    Similar to the way humans further back in time were convinced the earth was flat, the center of the universe, the sky was a big sheet through which god/s poked holes so that we might have stars in the sky, so on and so forth.

    I hold that the ultimate human would be far inferior to the ultimate being. "Perfect" humans would be simulataneously...the best of the best and the best of the worst.

    The 'perfect human' would be something like this: best pedophile,best murderer, best rapist, best thief, best champion, best coward, best freak, best fag, etc.

    All the things that go into making a human animal. What I do NOT want to see...is the birth of the perfect human.

    Because humans inherently suck.

    The goal of eugenics as I understand it is to create a 'better human'.

    But before we go there we must first determine what a 'human' is, what makes a 'human' a 'human', and finally...whether or not such a creature is worth elevating to the level of 'deities'.

    It is my opinion that once that list is compiled and one can read it without biased, the conclusion will be....'humans' are unfit to serve as the model by which the uber being shall be created.

    I agree with the lion example. However, I dont attach 'primitive instinct' to 'ego'. I hold them as two seperate unique aspects of aliveness.

    Survival instinct is for and does exactly what its name implies, nothing more and nothing less.

    Example: Christians...turn the other cheek, yet how many christians will actually turn the other cheek when say....their child is being raped by a buck snb?

    Survival Instinct, for species, will likely over ride the ego born ideology of jesus.

    Likely the christian will fight tooth and nail to preserve their life, and or the lives of their loved ones.

    Example2: The christian 'decides', that being a christian is more important than surviving. In this instance ego has become self destructive, because it has been given a place of greater importance than survival instinct.

    'Personal Feelings' and 'secular devotions', are exploitable weaknesses. Flaws. Tell me....how will the super scientist hope to be able to be so perfectly scientific himself as to be able to create the next level of being, if his mind and heart are distracted by imperfect personal preference?

    Yet as Universal Nuance would have it, the sloppiness and partiality of that particular scientist may end up being the catalyst that sets in motion the birth of the uber.

    Science, is primarily, but not limited to; learning through failure, and or via 'accident'.

    In many myths god/s created man in their own image. I submit, man makes gods in his own image and doesnt want to be honest about it.

    The nordic myth is a really nice one in that it goes against the grain of the typical "do as i say not as i do, worship forever or else" kind of egomaniacal mental control nonsense.

    Odin didnt beat his own breast proclaiming himself the be all end all, worthy of eternal worship. Instead he admitted his limitedness and the desire to over come it, by crucifying himself for 9 days, for the purpose of obtaining knowledge.

    Odin shows us: Its ok to search for knowledge. Its ok and sometimes necesary to suffer to gain that knowledge. And most importantly...he shows us that we dont have to be big headed assholes about it once we do acquire the knowledge we seek.

    Odin didnt suffer what he did so that he could be praised eternally for it, he did what he did because he wanted to save life, save his loved ones, prevent darkness from ruling the planes.

    This style of selfless persuit of knowledge, i believe is the path to the uber.

    The hebrew one god on the other hand isnt really about much of anything other...bow to him faithfully, endlessly, or else.

    I re-submit, man makes gods in his own image, not the other way around.

    If one reads very carefully one will discover that the attitudes and behavoirs of the hebrew one god, GREATLY reflect the behavoirs and attitudes of the ...people who created and maintain that system of thought.

    The pantheon of deities within the Nordic system, DO DEFINATELY reflect the attitudes and behavoirs of the Nordic people.

    From a 'human' PoV: I kind of wish gods were real. Because i'd very much like to see Thor bring his mighty hammer crashing down apon the maggot filled worm eaten skull of the culture destroying, usurping, self worshipping, ego maniac, globalist 'one god'.

    Oops sorry, I side tracked myself.

    "we owe nothing to impersonal forces"

    I beg to differ. Water is an impersonal substance/force, yet without it we would die, therefore do we not owe at least something...to water?

    The star aka 'sun' is an impersonal force...without it no life would be possible. We owe some level of reverence/respect to the impersonal., but no more or less so than that which it gives us.

    However for survival it becomes necessary to teach the commoners to revere such constructs, because if we dont then theyll fuck up all the water supplies and render us waterless, thus condemning us to die.

    Yet as irony would have it...this barbaric self destruction may in fact be the very thing that gives birth to the uber.

    Who knows. Unfortunately I am little more than an uneducated barbarian, trapped in a sea of less educated savages, floating through space on a giant ball of poop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fantastic work, Mad Stan! You have outdone yourself. I want to focus on our discussion of egoism if I may.

    You speak of greed, gluttony, and arrogance as if they were bad things! Yet, it is humans (specifically clergy) who condemn them and fear them. And why do they do that? They do so to keep an order with themselves at the top of the heap. When wolves fight for a scrap of food and the alpha grabs it, do we condemn the alpha as greedy or gluttonous? I would not.

    When I argue that egoism is necessary for the emergence of the step beyond the post-human, I mean it – without reservation or limitation. But just as people differ, so do forms of egoism. And some forms of egoism are more likely to produce the next step than others. Obviously, an egoism that focuses on dutiful Christian charity as the primary definition of self-worth will never lead to a form of life superior to the human, only to egalitarian sewage. Christians have their own super-being, the long missing Jesus Christ Superstar! But, an egoism based on supremacy, defeat of the human, eradication of its genes, and a great purging flame that will consume its folly has a much greater chance of producing a REAL super-being in place of the human. Wouldn’t you think?

    The elimination of egoism in all forms, and attainment of a Zen state of self-abnegation is but one form of human suicide. If a device could be produced that would scramble one’s brain and erase one’s memories completely, that would be ego death too. If consciousness could transcend death of the body, would it be suicide to release it by killing the host?

    One other point I should make is that I believe human emotion is a step beyond instinct, which is in turn a step beyond reflex (stimulus-reaction). And by step beyond, I mean evolutionarily more sophisticated. And what comes beyond emotion? Reason does. I count among the post-Human all those who aim to improve the human condition through the application of reason: science. After all, how dare they be so arrogant as to believe that nature could be improved upon in the first place! *sarcasm alert*

    Once again I state: I despise humans as combinations of the worst of animal and monster. Unfortunately, I arose from humans and have to work with the basic materials I have been given. The post-human can delight in the destruction of the human, but without putting something else in its place, the post-human commits suicide.

    And I believe that may be what you want this world to do, that you want it to self-destruct or otherwise be obliterated. This is to my mind is only the second best option! I cannot leave it to the universe to do this and put something in its place! What about my needs as a megalomaniac?

    Let me also say that the post-human, the post-post-human, the post-post-post-human, and so on are all likely to be necessary steps toward the ultimate being. I suppose what may be our disagreement is what form the next step takes. Am I right in thinking that because of your distaste for humans, you would not like to see the next step come from humans? But tell me, should the universe have given snails emotion instead of humans, and then given the snails reason, would the snails have been any better than humans? Would there not still be inferior snails and superior snails? Will not the superior take advantage of the inferior? This is all very tongue-in-cheek of course.

    I would offer you this: What is worse than a human? A sub-human. And what was worse than the sub-human? The proto-human. And so forth. Let us enjoy the decline and fall of humanity and embrace our chance to step up to the plate. Will we strike out? Of course we will. But it’s our turn! And we should be pleased that those who come next will still be on our team. To forfeit now would be unsporting!

    The alternative you suggested, to seek knowledge and truth for its own value is impossible by my evaluation. For truth is whatever we say it is and has no value beyond what we place on it (egoism again!); and knowledge without application will certainly not lead to more knowledge.

    And for the record: Bah! I despise water and sunlight! What are we, plants? To have any respect for our limitations comes dangerously close to conservationism. And in the annihilating universe, nothing can exist in stasis. I once argued with a fellow student that pollution was beneficial to life and may contribute to evolution. Bacteria in a petri dish eventually poison their environment, but the strongest hold out as long as they can in the hopes of catching the next inoculation out. She was horrified.

    It is always good speaking with you. Mr. Metzger is coming on soon, so I have to go for now. I hope you enjoy my show tonight if you can catch it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's been quite a while. Pardon my not having finished this conversation with you. I was getting banned from so many websites that I just retreated to my mountain as it were.

    I'm back, armed, ready, and MAD as hell!

    I decided to start by re-reading this now old and dusty discussion. I must clear the air regarding "things".

    Due to several events in my life I never did get a chance to read or respond to your final post in our discussion. Now that I have read it I have to say that perhaps it seemed like you and I were coming at eachother from opposing views or preferences or what have you. We weren't. I think what happened is I failed to make a clear distinction between my vision of things to come, my preference, and the nature of existance as it is currently for a meat bag (aka human being). Also it would seem that I must break this up into more than one post, i tried posting but recieved a message informing me that I had exceeded the character count limitations.

    Part 1:

    Your final post Fri Aug 18, 06:21:00 PM EST and my very late responses.

    My words regarding Ego, weren't painted very well. In essence I was merely trying to make a destinction between healthy ego which strives and pushes ever forward and upward to higher states of being, and it's opposite, the type of ego which destroys itself or its "host". Which effectively makes the journey towards higher states of being improbable if not impossible.

    Perhaps if I comment section by section on your "final post" it might clear the air as it were.

    AA: "Fantastic work, Mad Stan! You have outdone yourself. I want to focus on our discussion of egoism if I may."

    MS: Hey thanks.

    AA: "You speak of greed, gluttony, and arrogance as if they were bad things! Yet, it is humans (specifically clergy) who condemn them and fear them. And why do they do that? They do so to keep an order with themselves at the top of the heap. When wolves fight for a scrap of food and the alpha grabs it, do we condemn the alpha as greedy or gluttonous? I would not."

    MS: Oops, I guess I didn't express my thought clearly enough. No of course I wouldn't condemn the Alpha. But IF the Alpha ate everything then the tribe, the alpha, and the journey towards higher states of being would all come to an end. With that being said do Alpha wolves ever cause the death of thier packs by refusing to leave scraps for the females and or pups? So I don't think we were in opposition, but rather looking at the same thing different ways?

    AA: "When I argue that egoism is necessary for the emergence of the step beyond the post-human, I mean it – without reservation or limitation. But just as people differ, so do forms of egoism. And some forms of egoism are more likely to produce the next step than others. Obviously, an egoism that focuses on dutiful Christian charity as the primary definition of self-worth will never lead to a form of life superior to the human, only to egalitarian sewage. Christians have their own super-being, the long missing Jesus Christ Superstar! But, an egoism based on supremacy, defeat of the human, eradication of its genes, and a great purging flame that will consume its folly has a much greater chance of producing a REAL super-being in place of the human. Wouldn’t you think?"

    MS: It seems this paragraph confirms what I said above. The difference between types of Egoism and thier potentials and likelihoods of resulting in extinction or alternatively resulting in evolution towards higher states of being.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part 2:

    AA: "The elimination of egoism in all forms, and attainment of a Zen state of self-abnegation is but one form of human suicide. If a device could be produced that would scramble one’s brain and erase one’s memories completely, that would be ego death too. If consciousness could transcend death of the body, would it be suicide to release it by killing the host?"

    MS: Agreed. I think you meant would it be suicide if the individual released its transcendant consciousness via a self inflicted terminal wound. Yes and No. Yes, it would be the suicide of the organic being. No, it wouldn't be suicide it would be sort of like the "birth" of the transcendant consciousness finally free'd from its contemptable limited corrupt mortal prison (aka meat bag).

    AA: "One other point I should make is that I believe human emotion is a step beyond instinct, which is in turn a step beyond reflex (stimulus-reaction). And by step beyond, I mean evolutionarily more sophisticated. And what comes beyond emotion? Reason does. I count among the post-Human all those who aim to improve the human condition through the application of reason: science. After all, how dare they be so arrogant as to believe that nature could be improved upon in the first place! *sarcasm alert*"

    MS: Agreed, to a degree. Where we part ways a pinch is right here "I count among the post-Human all those who aim to improve the human condition through the application of reason: science." I do not. The reason being is there are those who would "desire" to do as you say, improve the human condition, but have absolutely nothing of value to add to that endevour, or worse they would willingly or even unwittingly be a destructive force to the very ends which they desire. "Total acceptance" without reasonable restraints, isn't much different from the "cult of tolerance" or the style of "christian egoism" which you described previously. Im more hardline i guess in that respect. I believe in very strict controls over who or what is accepted. The comment I made about letting nature handle it was an incomplete thought which I tried later to clarify but failed horribly, again i'm not an educated man.

    AA: "Once again I state: I despise humans as combinations of the worst of animal and monster. Unfortunately, I arose from humans and have to work with the basic materials I have been given. The post-human can delight in the destruction of the human, but without putting something else in its place, the post-human commits suicide.

    And I believe that may be what you want this world to do, that you want it to self-destruct or otherwise be obliterated. This is to my mind is only the second best option! I cannot leave it to the universe to do this and put something in its place! What about my needs as a megalomaniac?"

    MS: Oops we have a misunderstanding. I chose the name Mad Stan and the phrase "Blow it all up" because at the time my son was into a cartoon called Batman Beyond, and in it was the character Mad Stan who at first was considered a "bad guy", but in a later episode Batman began to at least understand where Mad Stan was coming from, even if the two did not agree on the solution, they at least agreed that there were serious problems getting worse day by day in the "human species". It was a playfull choice of name and phrase on my part, not a reflection of my prefered solution, final solution perhaps, but not prefered.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 3:

    AA: "Let me also say that the post-human, the post-post-human, the post-post-post-human, and so on are all likely to be necessary steps toward the ultimate being. I suppose what may be our disagreement is what form the next step takes. Am I right in thinking that because of your distaste for humans, you would not like to see the next step come from humans? But tell me, should the universe have given snails emotion instead of humans, and then given the snails reason, would the snails have been any better than humans? Would there not still be inferior snails and superior snails? Will not the superior take advantage of the inferior? This is all very tongue-in-cheek of course."

    MS: Yes and no. Firstly, my sights were set way further down the line. As in so entirely "post-human" that the word "human" can comfortably be removed. Secondly, we weren't in disagreement exactly. More like concerning ourselves with different phases of the process. I agree totally that if the "uber" is to come from humans then it will likely be in phases and each phase will likely for a long time yet still resemble "human". Distaste for humans? Not exactly. More like distaste for the worst and or most useless aspects of "humanity". I'd like firstly to definately establish just who is or isn't "human". Then effectively neutralize the chaff. Then when the "post-humans" (or, next phase types) are in sufficient numbers, effectively neutralize the old types previously reffered to as "humans", and so on and so forth for the post and post-post and post-post-post et cetera. Anti-snailism, haha.

    AA: "I would offer you this: What is worse than a human? A sub-human. And what was worse than the sub-human? The proto-human. And so forth. Let us enjoy the decline and fall of humanity and embrace our chance to step up to the plate. Will we strike out? Of course we will. But it’s our turn! And we should be pleased that those who come next will still be on our team. To forfeit now would be unsporting!"

    MS: ABSOLUTELY!

    AA: "The alternative you suggested, to seek knowledge and truth for its own value is impossible by my evaluation. For truth is whatever we say it is and has no value beyond what we place on it (egoism again!); and knowledge without application will certainly not lead to more knowledge."

    MS: "knowledge without application will certainly not lead to more knowledge." That I agree with. But this I do not, "The alternative you suggested, to seek knowledge and truth for its own value is impossible by my evaluation. For truth is whatever we say it is and has no value beyond what we place on it (egoism again!)". Here's why. If we are to engineer our own evolution towards perfection then we will need to understand the very real facts regarding "what is" as well as "what may be". In understanding the facts we acquire the truth. Without understanding of or control over (scientific control?) the factual reallity, we diminish our potential to successfully engineer or own induced evolution towards perfection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 3 cont:

    "Truth is whatever we say it is", hot is hot whether we admit it or not. "And has no value beyond what we place on it (egoism again!)", is it that it has no value of its own or is it that it has no value to those who don't prefer it? Allow me to use a very silly example here. If I approach you and say 'Mr. Arlow the key to the next phase of evolution is to take this gun here and shoot yourself with it, which of course won't hurt a bit and no you won't be dead, just transformed'. Would you rather have the knowledge and understanding of the real truth before deciding whether or not to pull the trigger or would you simply take my word for it and pull the trigger?

    I realize that you might possibly come back at me with something like, "but i said right here 'no value beyond what we place on it' ". My argument would be that the truth of the organic shell, the gun, the bullet, and the physical result of putting said bullet through the skull of the organic being, is true whether you or I knew it or not, liked it or not, or accepted it or not. It could be eaily tested (please don't try this at home).

    When I said "truth" I wasn't speaking like a speculating shaman or some such thing. I was reffering to the reallity of anything, everything, which you and I both seem to think (correct me if i'm wrong) science can reveal to us much more accurately than mysticism can. Point being, we will need much of this sort of understanding and "truth" if we are going to willingly consciously induce our own evolution towards perfection.

    If we do not acquire understanding and truth then we will be doing nothing more or less than playing a total crap shoot, in which case we would in fact be doing nothing more or less than allowing nature to do it in her own sloppy and painfully slow way!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 4:

    AA: "And for the record: Bah! I despise water and sunlight! What are we, plants? To have any respect for our limitations comes dangerously close to conservationism. And in the annihilating universe, nothing can exist in stasis. I once argued with a fellow student that pollution was beneficial to life and may contribute to evolution. Bacteria in a petri dish eventually poison their environment, but the strongest hold out as long as they can in the hopes of catching the next inoculation out. She was horrified."

    MS: "To have any respect for our limitations comes dangerously close to conservationism". True but to totally and wrecklessly trash reallity around us would diminish our potential to finish 'the work'. Meaning, you and I currently 'need' water food et cetera, in order to survive. We need to survive in order to continue the journey and the business of evolution towards perfection. Therefore it would not be wise to say for example, cut down all trees on earth today, in order to make enough toilet paper to wipe all the asses in africa.

    Because firstly like it or not we currently need those damn trees for oxygen. Secondly those asses aren't worth the time energy and resources wasted to paper wipe them.

    "Conservationism" isn't what I was saying. Logical use of limited resources was more my point.

    That wraps that up I guess. In retrospect I wish I had thought my previous posts through more carefully before posting them. Anyway, I love what you do. Reading your words or hearing your voice express your thoughts is always a treat for me. May they never find a way to silence you.

    ReplyDelete