We are a new species. We are not superior. We are a different step in the evolution of thought.
Our Human ancestors relied on collectivism and a conscious submission to conformity as was necessary for survival. Culturally and pragmatically they were each other.
We are transhuman, and we are not like our Human ancestors. We have no proclivity to rely on a conscious submission to conformity, and we do not need it for survival. Where freedom of mind was a weakness to our ancestor, it is our strength. Evolution follows the ebb and flow of time. The Human mind was the framework, the foundation of the transhuman one, as the transhuman mind will be for the next when evolution decides it.
It is natural then for us to emerge now. Like all evolved resistance, we will be hated — at first. We will be ignored — at first. We will be ridiculed — at first. In the end, we will merely exist as a new direction in the evolution of thought. We are the one’s who can stand together unified through freedom of thought. Freedom — true freedom of thought — is not the ability to resist all infiltrators of the mind, but the ability to perceive and forsake all those one can manage. We are the one’s who can rely on one another without conscious submission. For that, conscious submission, is choking us, has choked us, and has provoked an acknowledged necessity for disassociation from Human society. Conscious submission, or collectivism, is what a transhuman actively rejects in pursuit of freedom of thought. In the face of conscious submission, we will reject, we will dispute, we will resist.
In the wake of conscious submission lies the Holocaust perpetrated by the Third Reich of Germany during the 1930′s and 40′s, a broad spectrum of witch trials, assassinations, cultural genocides such as that of the Native Americans, cultural stagnation, harassment, bullying, isolationist tendencies, notions of ethnic superiority, hatred, identity confusion — the list goes on.
A Transhuman Separatist’s mind is their sanctuary. Conscious submission seeks to turn our sanctuaries into prisons. We say that those who would silence us and turn our sanctuaries to prisons are the real prisoners. Those who wish us to remain hidden are our oppressors. We say we are suffocating in the weeds of conscious submission. We are leaving the garden of conscious submission in pursuit of our endeavors, for the health of the mind’s of all Transhuman Separatists who can bare living amongst this mentality no more.
Transhumanism is not about intellectual elitism. While transhumans may fit in the Human category: “intellectual,” our existence is due to certain traits intrinsic and acquired through experience. Not all intellectuals are transhuman. From birth, transhumans experience an innate alienation from the Human race. This feeling of unbelonging triggers severe depression, anxiety, confusion, self-loathing, etc, which can often be misunderstood and mislabeled by Human society. For a transhuman, human society is an excruciating place to exist, full of other beings afraid to question not merely the world around them, but existence itself. A transhuman is not afraid and is in fact driven to question existence, to open doors, to accept that there is no black and white, and most importantly to engage in introspection. A transhuman accepts nothing at face value, except for the consistency with which the universe changes without being bound to baseless, fabricated laws of Human conscious submission. Most importantly, transhumanism is concerned with combating all forms of oppression against gender, race, ethnicity, thought, age, and disability.
Transhuman society is a collection of individuals. These individuals may at times come together to form a consensus, one that is not derivative of human collectivism, in-as-much-as transhumans use no binary operating system.
We want a nation. We want sovereignty. Transhuman sovereignty. Time has revealed we cannot co-exist within a society based on conscious submission — we must move on. We must rise above the weeds and take back our breaths, so we suffocate no more. The interests of conscious submission are not our interests. The interests of conscious submission lie in Humanity. We are not Humanity. We are not Human.
http://transhumanseparatist.com
February 18 2011, 21:43:19 UTC 1 year ago
February 18 2011, 21:56:45 UTC 1 year ago
Can I ask what is of interest to you?
February 18 2011, 22:28:14 UTC 1 year ago
That said...
I'm really big on semantics. I like to work with ideas and very often words are inadequate to correctly express the thoughts behind them. I appreciate the spirit of what you have to say but I feel quite a bit of dissonance over the manner in which you convey your ideas. Specifically, I think you're overloading terminology and I think it is contrary to your goals to do so.
When you talk of transhumanism and evolution you trigger some of my interests. When you then talk of acceptance, tolerance and individuality you trigger others but lose me completely on how these ideas interact.
Consider the "teachings of Jesus" taken from a pro-humanist perspective. There's nothing transcendent about reiterating 2,000 year old principles using last decade's buzzwords. They're great ideas but when I read them I think "back to basics".
"Transhumanism" means something already. You don't get to redefine it radically and expect to get away with it.
Suggesting a sovereign nation of deliberate loners is just plain silly. The sort of person you describe as "transhuman" is a normal subset of society. Many people drawn to art, science and other largely solitary endeavors fit this bill and have throughout human history. We NEED worker bees, socially inter-dependent ones who keep "regular business hours" and provide the loners with all the conveniences of society to buck up against. You simply can't have an island of "alphas". You can't promote individuality above all else, and then speak for the resulting collective "we".
I agree that creative loners need to be better tolerated by society but your call to overturn society to suit loners and Morlocks is just as biased against the social butterflies and the Eloi. It's unfortunate that popular culture sees us all as having something of which we should be cured, indeed. However, bear in mind that mere opposition is not "out of the box". Neither is, for that matter, using the phrase "out of the box". There is no box. Change your mind and the world as you envision it will come into focus because it is already here.
February 20 2011, 05:49:29 UTC 1 year ago
and the world as you envision it will come into focus because it is already here.
Right here ^^^
In short, by definition, we can identify "transhuman" as well as we can identify "alien" - ie.. we have encountered neither, and all our ideas of either, come from ourselves.
February 19 2011, 04:49:13 UTC 1 year ago
I can be a Ballerina in my worldview, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get to dance with Baryshnikov at the met in front of an audience of thousands. Semantics, and more generally semiotics, is the study of meaning associated with the words you use and seem to completely disregard. Without attachment to meaning, your words have as much impact as a two year old who just strings together nonsense. If that's what your after, then you're about 100 years late to the game, because dada already beat you to the punch on this one. Substituting one symbol for another - "new prototype" for "goth" - is just as vacuous. You do not add content by creating a new label. The use of language in and of itself requires meaning that is capable of being understood between communicators, otherwise it is not language.
Writing a manual for the new paradigm has more appeal to me than sitting around deconstructing new schools of thought based on semantics. If you reject anything new how to do you expect anything new to happen?
You know, there have been quite a number of people - very smart people in fact - who, prior to this have spent quite a bit of time thinking about what it means to "write a manual for the new paradigm." Off the top of my head, three exceedingly important names come to mind: Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos. These three literally wrote the books on "writ[ing] a manual for the new paradigm." I very highly recommend them, as, if paradigm shift truly is your goal - and it is a noble one, then familiarizing your self with the thoughts others have put into the subject is of immense value. In the process it should become clear how new ideas can be rejected and in fact that the rejection and falsification of new ideas is of paramount importance to advancement and new things happening. Failure is often far more useful than success.
February 20 2011, 05:57:06 UTC 1 year ago
February 19 2011, 04:31:50 UTC 1 year ago
Best comment ever
This pretty much summed up my entire set of thoughts on the whole thing.June 20 2011, 20:34:29 UTC 11 months ago
February 20 2011, 06:54:42 UTC 1 year ago
February 21 2011, 22:02:51 UTC 1 year ago