Torben

So, rw, I find your thinking very interesting, but mostly as a challenge to the prevailing attitudes towards death. You may consider my biological arguments as examples of the tendency to dismiss the question without further ado but that's not my agenda.

I sincerely doubt that we can ever be truly immortal, although we might be able to stretch our lifespans quite a bit more than we've already done.

For one, simple genetics. You mention the pine trees that live for thousands of years -- due to their genetic composition. Even if we succeed to delineate the detailed mechanisms of this resistance to ageing and are able to export it to humans, who's to say if people will accept this? It would require drastic rearrangements of our genomes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think people will be reluctant.

Perhaps more importantly, death can be considered as the prerequisite for life in the sense that if organisms didn't die, there wouldn't be room for newborns. So what do you have in mind here? Do you think people would stop having babies so that they could live forever themselves? If not, Planet Earth would soon fill up with people wanting not to die.

So even though I agree with your philosophical take on death (getting rid of the insulators), I seriously doubt the practical aspects of such an undertaking.

rainbow walking

leyline: whoa!

"Post modernism, as you observed in your first reply, is an admission that all of man's levels of insulation have failed to provide any meaning for his existence."

i did not mean that!! "man's levels of insulation" as you call them failed to give a 'definitive' meaning. I made it clear that postmodernism IMO does not reject the meanings given by science say, what it rejects is its total authority. Science offers no redemptive truths as Rorty puts it.

rw: Ah...forgive me if I misunderstood. Science has redeemed man from the caves, the dark ages, small pox, ignorance of his world, walking, sleeping on grass matts, mass starvation, totalitarian authority...what more redeeming truth can be ascribed to it? It has earned a voice in man's search for meaning.

"....I argue that a good philosophical addendum based on a direct assault against human mortality will take the issue beyond the quagmire of post modernism. "

leyline: but your assault on mortality seems to be purely scientific in practice. The only role that philosophy seems to play is to encourage the endeavour. And what of philosophical dilemmas and conflicts in the meantime? Are you suggesting that this unifying goal will be enough to halt squabbles and wars while we try?


rw: Let us hope not. I am not suggesting that all things have been resolved except man's mortality. I am sugesting that the resolution of man's mortality will resolve many seemingly irresolvable things and likely create new things to resolve...as all such things do.

leyline: I am all for confidence and its positive influence, similarly for the sense of a common goal, but this task is going to require many angles of scientific inquiry. This will be facilitated by doubts about some directions by some and not others. Once doubt itself becomes useful .... then there is the possibility of doubt about the whole project. Science runs on scepticism.

rw: Yes, healthy scepticism is a must for the scientific method. But this is not to be confused with fatalism or unbending authority. The progress of science is not a...well...exact science itself. Who can tell the timetable of progress? But this isn't an indication that science has...or ever will...grind to a halt. I am postulating an addendum to the scientific and philosophical compendium...an addendum that needs be spoken outrightly and placed on the table for serious consideration. Men of science are working every day on projects that address these very issues...biological and genetic and chemical and sub-atomic...all disciplines pushing the envelope of man's ignorance a little further from the black hole of death.

rainbow walking

rw: Ah... a potential ally...with very good and practical questions...a pleasant surprise.



Torben: So, rw, I find your thinking very interesting, but mostly as a challenge to the prevailing attitudes towards death. You may consider my biological arguments as examples of the tendency to dismiss the question without further ado but that's not my agenda.

rw: Okay.

torben: I sincerely doubt that we can ever be truly immortal, although we might be able to stretch our lifespans quite a bit more than we've already done.

rw: That would be a start...

torben: For one, simple genetics. You mention the pine trees that live for thousands of years -- due to their genetic composition. Even if we succeed to delineate the detailed mechanisms of this resistance to ageing and are able to export it to humans, who's to say if people will accept this?

rw: Of course, I never meant to imply that such advancements would be forced upon anyone.


tolben: It would require drastic rearrangements of our genomes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think people will be reluctant.

rw: Well, you must first understand that I only use these examples as evidence that nature itself demonstrates that relative length of lifespans is not limited to that of man's. This is clear indication that it is a possibility. Man's accomplishment of this would not necessarily have to involve a transplantation of such genetic mechanisms, but could involve something similar to discovering what causes his own cell structure to begin aging and introducing methods to arrest the aging process.

tolben: Perhaps more importantly, death can be considered as the prerequisite for life in the sense that if organisms didn't die, there wouldn't be room for newborns. So what do you have in mind here? Do you think people would stop having babies so that they could live forever themselves? If not, Planet Earth would soon fill up with people wanting not to die.

rw: And this is a very common concern. But consider this, at the present rate of population growth man will be forced to introduce regulations directing child bearing wether he makes any other scientific advances or not. This is likely to become a reality anyway...so it isn't going to be that much longer before man has no choice in the matter.

However, let's consider the possibilities of child birthing regulations. If man institutes legal ramifications to bringing un-approved children into the world...in other words, initiates a lisencing procedure...then people who do so in violation of the law would face serious repercusions. What this lisencing procedure could accomplish are benefits that far outweigh the legal restrictions. Aside from curbing over-population, lisencing procedures could require all would be parents to submit to medical examinations to expose any possible recessive genetic defects. Such a program, over a period of three or four generations, would all but eliminate the most common birth defects. Secondly, it could do an extensive background check on the would be parents to determine their fitness as parents, financial responsibility, education, psychological temperament...that sort of thing. Again, within a few generations we'd have alot of crime and drug addiction under control...as these have been shown to derive primarily from dysfunctional families. In short...just the thought...or philosophy of immortality would compell men to rethink many of their commonly held beliefs about such things as bringing children into the world...these things are going to be faced by man in a few generations anyway, barring any cataclysmic population reduction in the meantime, of course.

Next, I would venture a guess that by the time such procedures, or whatever it turns out to be, that allows man to arrest his aging process become a matter of choice...man will have already found ways to escape from the confines of this planet. In the universe are virtually billions of planet...many of which are likely to be habitable...and some near enough to be made habitable. So this question revolving around over-population isn't a major issue provided man uses wisdom...wisdom he's eventually going to be forced to resort to anyway...like it or not.

tolben: So even though I agree with your philosophical take on death (getting rid of the insulators), I seriously doubt the practical aspects of such an undertaking.

rw: Of course, doubt is one of the obstacles that a good philosophy must be able to address. Have you any other concerns?

edited to correct spelling (which is also a plus in the postulation of any philophical adventure)

leyline

rainbow walking

ok. if you want to interpret my use of redemptive truth that way. Nice one. My turn....

It seems to me RW, that your view of Pomo as a philosophical quagmire is that there is no definitive meaning. That culture (or multiculture) has descended into a kind of playpen full of coloured balls. The moment someone gets up and shouts “I am the god of hellfire!” he is likely to get a pink one in the eye.

Now suppose someone else gets up and shouts “Stop larkin about! We should all unite against death, and aim for immortality. Think of it. Immortality as opposed to a go in the play pen!” . He might get a few to stop and think, but how is he going to answer the awkward question “How long is it gonna take mate?”. The answer “ Oh I dunno. A couple of million years?” would quickly have all colours bouncing off him.

The only hope is to wait until everyone gets bored of larkin about. That’s a long wait. You could form a quiet ultramarine sect in a corner, and take say 20 million years instead. Either that or stand up and shout “I am the god of hellfire!” and really mean it.

In the meantime

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing at the sea side, and diverting myself in now and then finding a newer coloured ball or a prettier one than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all mixed up before me."

rainbow walking

leyline:

ok. if you want to interpret my use of redemptive truth that way. Nice one. My turn....

It seems to me RW, that your view of Pomo as a philosophical quagmire is that there is no definitive meaning. That culture (or multiculture) has descended into a kind of playpen full of coloured balls. The moment someone gets up and shouts “I am the god of hellfire!” he is likely to get a pink one in the eye.

Now suppose someone else gets up and shouts “Stop larkin about! We should all unite against death, and aim for immortality. Think of it. Immortality as opposed to a go in the play pen!” . He might get a few to stop and think, but how is he going to answer the awkward question “How long is it gonna take mate?”. The answer “ Oh I dunno. A couple of million years?” would quickly have all colours bouncing off him.

The only hope is to wait until everyone gets bored of larkin about. That’s a long wait. You could form a quiet ultramarine sect in a corner, and take say 20 million years instead. Either that or stand up and shout “I am the god of hellfire!” and really mean it.

In the meantime

rw: Leyline, when I read your analogy I had to laugh. Thank you for reminding me not to get so frogging serious that I forget I'm in the playpen too.

Now, to address your common concern:

"How long will it take?"

Basically, what you're expressing is: "But, what's in it for me?"

To answer that concern let me ask you what I'm really asking of you? I'm not selling snake oil so you don't have to worry about being baptized or anything like that. I'm really just seeking your consent...your tacit agreement that I might be right...that somewhere down the road this issue may come up and require your support...or vote...or voice expressing your aspect of the popular will.

In reality, you and I aren't likely to enjoy any benefits from this philosophy in the immediate sense. We're likely to be drug, kicking and screaming, out of the playpen when out time comes, just like all our ancestors before us. But does that mean we have to leave the playpen in the same, or worse, mess than when we found it? Can we maybe stack the balls up for the next group of kids in such a way as to point them in a possible direction that might lead to something better down the road? Must there always be something in it for us? (I know, I know, I can hear the groans of dis-approval already).

How long did it take us to put a man on the moon when we were determined to do so? When we felt our way of life depended on beating the Russians? About 10 years or so and we went from flying monkeys in capsules to man on the moon. Maybe...just maybe...it won't take millions of years. If it does...you and I have failed to make any meaningful contribution to the playpen.

rw: Indeed...pass me that red ball, I think it goes here.

leyline

Rainbow Walking

"Basically, what you're expressing is: "But, what's in it for me?""

yes. This is a difficult one to get past when it comes to human nature. Authority has the appropriate response "You won't get a slap!"

I empathise with your general concern about the directionless of Pomo, and feel it too. But i much prefer multiculturalism and relativism to the absolutist paradigms we have served up until now.

But when you use the examples of men on the moon, while i agree that this is what we are capable of when focussed, it was precisely the "what's in it for me" mentality that promoted the rush. Politically and in terms of scientific budgets and excitement that is. It was realisable in a lifetime and that provided the spurt towards the line.

In reality the scientific search for immortality is going on of course. It just isn't unifying us because correctly or incorrectly it doesn't seem like it is around the corner.

"I'm really just seeking your consent...your tacit agreement that I might be right...that somewhere down the road this issue may come up and require your support...or vote...or voice expressing your aspect of the popular will"

yes it is possible. But then would you not agree that even further down the line we would return to the play pen? You know. After we have achieved it that is!

rainbow walking

leyline"Basically, what you're expressing is: "But, what's in it for me?""

yes. This is a difficult one to get past when it comes to human nature. Authority has the appropriate response "You won't get a slap!"

I empathise with your general concern about the directionless of Pomo, and feel it too. But i much prefer multiculturalism and relativism to the absolutist paradigms we have served up until now.

But when you use the examples of men on the moon, while i agree that this is what we are capable of when focussed, it was precisely the "what's in it for me" mentality that promoted the rush. Politically and in terms of scientific budgets and excitement that is. It was realisable in a lifetime and that provided the spurt towards the line.

rw: Yes, a good philosophy must exploit the exploiters.

leyline: In reality the scientific search for immortality is going on of course. It just isn't unifying us because correctly or incorrectly it doesn't seem like it is around the corner.

rw: Then we must create the illusion...inspire, unleash the imagination...start man thinking seriously...acting as if it's just around the corner...inspire a national challenge....crank up the dream machinery and make it real...until it becomes so.


leyline: yes it is possible. But then would you not agree that even further down the line we would return to the play pen? You know. After we have achieved it that is!

rw: Oh no...we'd move on to bigger and better things. Do you put grown-ups in a playpen?

leyline

rainbow walking

"Then we must create the illusion...inspire, unleash the imagination...start man thinking seriously...acting as if it's just around the corner..."

an illusion eh? Ooooo. I am so excited I can't wait to be grown up!

But does it have to be the illusion of immortality through science? What about others like. If we all go "Omm" for twenty years a third all 'knowing' eye will appear in our foreheads. Or ...... if we are really really good there will be heaven on earth.

Perhaps we should hold an international competition for the best illusion, and then all get behind it.

Seriously though. I don't see immortality making us all mature. We would become paranoid about accidents for a start. And anyway, what meaning would there be to life without the immortality quest ..........other than hanging on to it, or 'Lets make everyone beautiful'?

Isn't it precisely because we are not immortal that we have more than enough urgency already?

rainbow walking

leyline
"Then we must create the illusion...inspire, unleash the imagination...start man thinking seriously...acting as if it's just around the corner..."

an illusion eh? Ooooo. I am so excited I can't wait to be grown up!

But does it have to be the illusion of immortality through science? What about others like. If we all go "Omm" for twenty years a third all 'knowing' eye will appear in our foreheads. Or ...... if we are really really good there will be heaven on earth.

Perhaps we should hold an international competition for the best illusion, and then all get behind it.

rw: Hey, come on...now yer bustin me chops fer me choice o words...I thought a POMO would appreciate the reference to illusion...

leyline: Seriously though. I don't see immortality making us all mature. We would become paranoid about accidents for a start.


rw: You mean we aren't already...?

leyline: And anyway, what meaning would there be to life without the immortality quest


rw: Whatever you want it to be. If you didn't like the one you tried for a few hundred years...try another. Why would immortality force us out of a meaning for life. I'm positing that precisely because of death, we have no meaning for living...other than what little we can squeeze out of it for our brief time here...while living a pretense of not caring that we're gonna check out...when we all know full well we do care. Death drains away any meaning we might otherwise subscribe to our lives...renders it cheaper and more burdensome.

.leyline: .........other than hanging on to it, or 'Lets make everyone beautiful'?

rw: I'm not advocating a "making" of anything as in forcing folks to be or do something they'd prefer not to. Same goes for extending life spans. Certainly no one should be forced to live any longer than they want to...which brings into question some of our rules about suicide and euthenasia...yes?

leyline:Isn't it precisely because we are not immortal that we have more than enough urgency already?

rw: More than enough...yes, yes...too much urgency, in fact....the kind of urgency that causes us to make snap judgments and hasty decisions...the kind of pressure that creates climates of war over the most insignificant things...made significant by our short life spans.

leyline

Rainbow Walking

though I empathise with you RW on the issue of a meaningful direction in life, it is a bit early to give up on pomo. It isn’t just science that throws out new and radical possibilities, though I agree that a scheme towards immortality is radical and inspires the imagination of how we might approach the unknown, particularly death. It is tempting to fear that we have reached the ever trivial existence of alternating between bickering and entertainment. But we haven’t even globalised capitalist democracy yet. Not everyone has the luxury of the western post modernist.

It is quite possible that our lives may change radically through simply not fearing pain and suffering as we did. To be part of a genuinely global culture. That we become free to explore subtle influences that are wiped out by the necessity of everyday life at the moment. We still hang on to the work ethic for example in the west.

Also we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that not everyone has philosophical tendencies. It would be easy to look down on say the guy who gets average grades at school, a good job, gets married, two kids, divorced, alcoholism, finds religion, plays the keyboard, another good job, remarries, 4 kids, retires, and then sweetly fades away enjoying the garden and his favourite soaps.

From the inside there is a lot of meaning there. In fact is it not true that most people get a great deal of meaning by accepting the prevailing culture and are proud to support it? In the sense that it could be almost any half decent culture.

Thus maybe pomo is the angst of those with philosophical aspirations? Haven’t such people always been disappointed by the behaviour of the masses? Why isn't your idea fine as a sub culture in itself?

"yes, yes...too much urgency, in fact....the kind of urgency that causes us to make snap judgments and hasty decisions...the kind of pressure that creates climates of war over the most insignificant things...made significant by our short life spans."

i know what you mean. But i wonder if immortality would therefore take a lot of significance away.