Path: news.cac.psu.edu!usenet
From: [email protected] (Zeitgeyser)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Frankenstein (was Dystopia cont.)
Date: 10 Sep 1995 13:34:34 GMT
Organization: PocketU
Lines: 67
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cadillac.soc.psu.edu
X-Authinfo-User: [email protected]
X-Posted-From: InterNews [email protected]
X-Authenticated: jmg139 on INN host hearst.cac.psu.edu

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (mpa) writes:

> Zeitgeyser ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>
> > I'm with Sourcerer on this one. Where would you point to for our lost
> > humanity? The Neandethal? Perhaps we lost our innocence when some poor
> > hunter-gatherer decided that it might be a good idea to poke a few hole
> > in the ground and drop seeds in and save a little walking next season?
>
> It would seem to be more likely that an action like that might be a
> description of the marker of the *beginning* of the age of "humanity"
> rather than the end. The growth of leisure time and the concretion of
> environment promote reflection and can lead to the development of a data
> set called "humanity"(and its characteristics).
>
>
> >
>
>
> > > But is "humanity" determined by biology or by how we describe ourselves.
> > > Its always seemed to me to be or of a cultural description than a
> > > physical one. Taking for granted that its a particular kind of biped's
> > > behavior in question.
>
> > Ever see a human outside a cultural context? Does our description of a
> > tree change the reality of the tree? I might be willing to stipulate
> > that our descriptions of ourselves may indeed change our culture but
> > those descriptions can never take place outside an already partially
> > defined cultural context.
>
> I'm not disputing that the physical plant of the homo sapiens has
> particular characteristics or that it isn't hardwired for certain
> activities or propensities but that the label "human" and its
> associations are temporary and, beyond that, proprietary to English if you
> want to be picky.
>
> I'm asserting only that there was a pre-"human" period of the species we
> now *call* human and that there will be, in all probability, a post-human
> phase pf our existence. I really didn't think this was that big a point.
> Sterling's covered all of this ground better in fiction than we possibly
> could in dry ol' usenet banter but I do enjoy talking about it.
>
> .mpa

You make my point. What I was trying to say was that how we define
"humanity" changes over time but that that definition is specific to a
particular cultural context. The genome changes over time but so does
the culture (more rapidly). A Cro-Magnan might not define Neanderthal
as pre-human in the same way we define both as pre-human. As such we
will never get to post-human because the definition of humanity is a
rolling one. It changes as we change. It is a mistake to plant a stake
in the (temporal) ground and say this is where humanity began as much
as it is a mistake to say that this is where humanity ends. It's the
same sort of mistake the pomos make when they decalre the end of
history.

**********************************************************************
Zeitgeyser - the Old Faithful of pop culture

"Unity is always at least two"
(Buckminster Fuller)

The trouble with anarchy is that it
ALWAYS degenerates into government (me, heehee)
**********************************************************************


[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]