Mythology Creation.

This can be done by an entire culture over centuries,

Or by a small group or even a single person over singular years. Their work may then be expanded upon and perhaps even realized by following generations. Take for example, Jules Verne’s all-electric submarine, or Star Trek’s warp drive, and holodeck.

Because it’s one of those days: I feel discouraged and therefore brain-dead. But trying to keep showing up.


RE: eleanorsbuzz: “TBC? Are you sharing a documentary?”

—› It’s strange it’s possible to open a post for replies and yet you can’t answer them in any proper way except to message the person or edit the post.

Anyway, perhaps I misunderstand the question or its intent, but no. TBC as in “to be continued” because this is a topic I’ll be writing more about, when I’m able.

When you’ve realized you’re human, it’s all laughable. Things we do, pants we wear. Then what’s there to do but to try to go beyond that? That’s silly too (transcendence is), but it’s interesting — it’s interesting to try to unwind our stories and our age-old notions of how things are or how they might work and… let nature talk, instead. What else can we be — how can we rearrange our systems, our sets of atoms and body-stuff? We can’t even know. It’s an act of creation. The greatest art work. To know would require knowing the plan of nature, and apparently nature doesn’t have one (despite what we may have liked to think, again, for centuries.) Funny. Good one, really. So, how far can you go, what can you become, how can you experience what’s extra-trans-post-super-uber-outer-sans-human, without dying?

…it’s almost useless for non-creative types to try to provide exegesis for the arts- they simply do not have the complexity of thought processes to approach Creationary, or Visionary, level things with a Functionary mind.

Dan Schneider, 6.6.03
"Breaking Down Julian Jaynes:
A Review of The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind”
{ cosmoetica }


I’d replace “complexity of” with something like “impractical-explorative”, or remove it.

A functionary mindset is useful and good… but it it can’t envision much outside the realm of the already existent or definitely possible.

It isn’t easy to remain in between — to employ the functional and factual in the visionary, and to explain to both groups why this can happen and why that can’t happen, respectively.

Get Ready for a New Human Species

Juan Enriquez, who spoke at Technology Review's EmTech conference on Tuesday, says our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it. Because we can engineer our environment and ourselves, humanity is moving beyond the constraints of Darwinian evolution. The result, he says, may be an entirely new species.

via MIT’s { Technology Review }


That’s the general idea behind transhumanism. Enriquez’s assertiveness in the interview is great to see, despite how much disbelief and negativity this topic faces. However, many answers seem unfinished, and this first seems to lack a broader understanding:

The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.

Are they? This response takes the “man vs nature” stance as it implies that the ways in which we evolve are “unnatural.” { That isn’t true. } Whether Darwin’s idea of “natural selection” implies something specific that excludes controlled evolution is a different question, but what’s being discussed here doesn’t seem to be a challenge to that theory.

{ Artificial Selection } seems to be a better term for this:

As opposed to artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain variations can pass.

In taking a new perspective on the terms “nature” and “artifice”, all that means is that nature, at a certain degree of complexity, has become able to choose the paths of its own evolution and expedite it, instead of relying on environmental nudges over many generations. We (the complex-enough life form) might not necessarily choose the “best” traits for survival in our environment, since we can be short-sighted, but neither does natural evolution.

Also, as evolution is { partially non-random }, it seems that what we have now is just a greater degree of control over the direction of adaptations.

But, as I don’t have a solid understanding of evolution, please respond if I’m wrong.


NY Times
Published: July 27, 2011

Biologists do not agree on what the definition of life should be or whether it is even useful to have one. But most do agree that the ability to evolve and adapt is fundamental to life. And they also agree that having a second example of life could provide insight to how it began and how special life is or is not in the universe, as well as a clue for how to recognize life if and when we do stumble upon it out there among the stars.

“Everything we know about life is based on studies of life on Earth,” said Chris McKay, a researcher at NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, Calif.

Dr. Joyce said recently: … “If you had a second example of life, even if it were synthetic, you might know better [than to assume it will be recognizable, will be like life we know on Earth]. I’m betting we’re just going to make it.

The possibilities of a second example of life are as deep as the imagination. It could be based on DNA that uses a different genetic code, with perhaps more or fewer than four letters; it could be based on some complex molecule other than DNA, or more than the 20 amino acids from which our own proteins are made, or even some kind of chemistry based on something other than carbon and the other elements that we take for granted, like phosphorous or iron. Others wonder whether chemistry is necessary at all. Could life manifest itself, for example, in the pattern of electrically charged dust grains in a giant interstellar cloud, as the British astronomer and author Fred Hoyle imagined in his novel “The Black Cloud”?