Memo44+--+RD2+Continued.

Thomas Solley STSH 4980-01 Senior Thesis Costelloe-Kuehn 12/9/2014 12/10/2014  12/13/2014  12/14/2014  12/15/2014  12/16/2014

Click here to return to portfolio.

__ Memo 44 -- Thesis Rough Draft 2 __ Attached are my notes and feedback from Brandon from Break. 

Finally able to add an interesting Cover to this -- still cocnerned about sources of course, there are so many...

4:15pm Appendix B done. Working a bit on Appendix C, and E -- I think it may be wise for me to "structure" what info and sources I have, so that I can cite things appropriately -- as that I know is already going to be such a major pain in the ass. Sadly I can't just export my entire Zotero library, so I have to do it folder by folder.

5:29pm Appendix E done. This si taking longer than I had wanted, but at least it gives me a means of showing how I was able to conduct my research, and what kind of results I got. I've probably got... at least 3 more Appendices to add though before I go-back and do Appendix D, C, and A.

7:20pm, Appendix D is done. Ish. I decided to just link the Oct. 19th Stream page, as it contained my attempts to search udner specific authors.

7:45pm, Appendix C is done. Just gotta figure what else to do now -- I've got my "stuff done" now listed, each under it's appropriate Appendix. I'm still missing the Methodology and Lit Review, Body, and Conclusion. So, let's get cracking on the Methodology now. I'm also at 35 pages -- not bad...

9:52pm, calling it a night. Started a new Introduction before the Overview, so as to do the appropriate explanation of the groups I want as well as explain the Ea video.

12/10, 2:29pm, Introduction partially complete? I'm now trying to juggle Capstone as well, which isn't being very cooperative...

6:36pm, stuck on the Lit Review -- not sure how extensive to go... Again, I've too many sources!

12:32pm, of the 14 articles we found, only 6 of those can I actually access the full PDF with-which to see how these authors define "humanity"...

"Cultural Coproduction of Four States of Knowledge" (Brendan Swedlow, 2012); -> The author's points here about nature may not be so sueful -- but his ideas with regards to "DOuglas' theories" (regarding the reactions of belief-systems to successful deconstruction of their beliefs -- especially cultural ideals of human nature) could be interesting, so I'm skipping to those. "Douglasian cultural theorists hypothesize that different types of social and political relations will be accompanied by beliefs and values, including beliefs about human and physical nature, that allow people to justify these relationships to each other. In other words, different kinds of social and political relations, beliefs, and values are thought to be interdependent or functionally related" (7) WHile interesting, this does not explicitly state an example of what "human nature" the Douglas may refer-to... ->However, thsi source does not actually ever explicitly state the forms of "human nature" used within their paper -- there may be more to find within Douglas' papers, however!

"Visions of a field: Recent developments on Studies of Social Science and Humanities" (Christian Daye', 2014); -> Sadly this makes a reference, and is itself a literature review of certain novels, the most interesting and useful of which may be a Soviet (Cold War)-era discussion. However, this author, just like the previous one, does not mention explicitly what the aspects of "human nature" used by that book are -- only that they were, in soem respects, "naive".

"Race, Ethnicity, and Technologies of Belonging" (Peter Wade, 2013); -> Now this looks more promising, this piece does explicitly use the term I'm looking for (human nature) 7 times in the paper... -> "First is the idea that race involves some reference to the realm of nature, especially human nature, and more specifically to the realm of heredity, mediated through kinship, and the way heredity is expressed in physical appearance and behavior. The concepts of (human) nature, heredity, and kinship are not subject to simple definition, because they are themselves historically and culturally variable and have been shaped powerfully by changing philosophical and scientific understandings of how these realms function (Lo´pez Beltra´n 2004; Mu¨llerWille and Rheinberger 2007; Wade 2002). Reference to the realm of nature invokes something thought in principle to exist without the intervention of human artifice, but because humans are thought to constantly intervene in practice into this realm, such a reference is already complex—nowhere more than in relation to ‘‘human nature,’’ which has been the subject of highly variable ideas about what is given (by God, the stars, the environment, heredity, etc.), and what is open to intervention, with the given and the artificial always overlapping a blurred boundary (Wade 2002). In any case, nature and human nature involve more than biology." (4) -> "The idea of human nature as a kind of fixed biological substratum, on top of which culture lies, is most characteristic of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Apart from this particular version of the biology-culture dichotomy, human nature has been understood in broader terms in Euro-American thought: it has been seen as in a dynamic relation to the environment—social and natural—and to involve both the physical body and behavior (aspects that modern Western thought tends to divide into biology and culture; Wade 2002). Thus, in stating that race makes reference to nature, it is necessary to avoid assuming that nature means simply a fixed substratum of human biology or that race is discourse of naturalizing power based on a ‘‘system of social categories constructed interms of biological difference’’ (Yanagisako and Delaney 1995, 20, italics in original). This limits our understanding of what a racial discourse does when it invokes nature and what kind of belonging is at issue." (4) -> "This is not to argue that concepts of race in early modern Europe were basically the same as in nineteenth-century Europe. They were very different—so different that some scholars would argue that race does not really emerge as a concept until the eighteenth century (Smedley 1993). It is a means of identifying a common thread that emphasizes how people are linked through ties of what Goldberg (2008, chap. 1) calls ‘‘presumptive filiation,’’ a belonging transmitted through mechanisms of reproduction and descent understood as natural—that is, seen as inherent in people by virtue of their physical humanity—which expresses itself in appearance and behavior."(5) Well now, this certainly does give me some hsitorical meat to work with -- I am sad that I will need to mention how litttle luck I had with finding appropriate literature, but ah well...

"Sociotechnical Practices and Differences" (Ingunn Moser, 2006); -> Well, "human" nor "human nature" are mentioned AT ALL in the body of this paper... SKIPPPPP

"God Talk: Confusion between Sciecne and Religion" (Dorothy Nelkin, 2004); ->"...a man might look fine to the outside world, but despite appearances, if he is evil or if he is ill, it will be marked in his soul—or in his genes. This essentialist concept, investing the gene with social meaning and spiritual significance, suggests that by deciphering and decoding the molecular text, scientists will be able to reconstruct the essence of human beings, unlocking the key to human nature. In both the language of scientists and the parables of popular culture, the biological structure called DNA is endowed with the qualities of a sacred object through which human life and fate can be explained and understood. This belief gives mystical and fantastic meaning to a molecular entity, empowering scientists and providing the foundation for cosmic claims" (9) -> "Theories of artificial intelligence suggest that human intelligence is not unique but can be experienced by “thinking machines” (Turkle 1988). Virtual reality fuses the biological with the mechanical, reducing human experience to stimulation of the neocortex (Rheingold 1991). The cover of Bryan Appleyard’s (1993) study of science and the soul of modern man features a robotic hand reaching out to touch a human hand, in imitation of Michaelangelo’s depiction of the moment of creation. The sequencing of the genome reveals that humans share 95 percent of their genes with other animals. And the evolutionary narratives of sociobiology suggest that human social organization is simply an extension of primate or mammalian behavior (Konner 1976; Dawkins 1976). The clear lines between man and nature, or life and technology have been shaded over and obscured, often in discomforting ways (Haraway 1991)." (9) -> "Former director of the Human Genome Project and Nobelist James Watson has proclaimed in public interviews that DNA is “what makes us human” and that, “in large measure, our fate is in our genes” (Jaroff 1989). Science in these repeated statements appears to be usurping the traditional role of religion in defining the essence of human life." (9) This did not contain as much references as I wanted, but it does seem to support the term the author uses heavily -- "essentialist" -- ideals of an "organic" attraction WRT "human nature"...

"Where is the Human? Beyond the Enhancement Debate" (Yoni Van Den Eede, 2014); -> Ooh, 12 places that "human nature" pops-up! I do look-forward to this!!!! There is so much here I want to draw-from and use, as the author's History points are just spot-on... --> "...in ‘‘pre-postmodern’’ thought, the human was already found, so to speak, while technology needed clarification. In effect, technology was often defined on the basis of some fairly straightforward, mostly mechanistic model of the generic human being. Kapp (1877), for one, defines technologies as ‘‘organ projections.’’ Technology serves here to facilitate human actions and purposes. Ontologically, human enterprise precedes technology, which appears as means to an end. Nowadays, such a position is known as instrumentalism. In the twentieth century, a different account of technology arose, accompanied by perspectives that questioned the legacy of the Enlightenment, such as phenomenology and structuralism. These began to let the modern rational subject disintegrate. All the while, technology is no longer seen as neutral, merely enhancing human purposes. It’s framed as a kind of force, domain, or system with far-reaching effects, first and foremost on ‘‘our’’ being. The works of Ellul (1964) and Heidegger (1977) are often cited as prime examples of this substantivist view. These accounts ontologize technology: promote it, in a manner of speaking, to a level heretofore reserved for human beings. Thus, the threat hailing from technology becomes incomparably bigger. The human being, no longer taken for granted, is forced into a defensive position, refashioned as something that needs special protection and nurturing. Since the end of the twentieth century, another shift has been underway. Now the contours of technologies have begun to blur as well, and the boundaries between the human being and technology have become indistinct and elusive. The philosophy of technology that emerged throughout the 1980s and 1990s aims to find a middle road between instrumentalist and substantivist approaches, by seeing humans and technologies as intrinsically interrelated. A different substream within the philosophy of technology can be seen to materialize depending on which aspect of the human– technology relation is focused upon: experience and materiality (e.g., Ihde 1979, 1990; Verbeek 2005), politics (e.g., Winner 1986; Feenberg 1999, 2002), information (e.g., Floridi 2011), morality and ethics (e.g., Verbeek 2011; Brey 2012), or design and engineering (Mitcham 1994; Michelfelder, McCarthy, and Goldberg 2013). These strands problematize the human subject and technological object to such degree that it becomes reasonable and necessary to understand them together in a single framework." (3) --->>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGHHHHHHHH THIS IS SO PERFECT CAN I USE IT CAN I USE IT PLEASEEEEEEEEE -> "...Crudely put, in all these disciplines, it is found that ‘‘we’’ humans are not the autonomous, transcendental, preferably male subjects that we were once made out to be. Instead, we must learn to see ourselves as hybrid blends of flesh, mind, materials, machines, information, values, institutions, relations, and processes." (4) -> "That, however, does not mean that the search for the human being has ceased altogether. The ongoing enhancement debate, crisscrossing many of the aforementioned perspectives, demonstrates this. The discussion concerns exactly the extent to which humans should merge with technology. It is about which degree of enhancement must precisely be desired. Should technology ‘‘just’’ remedy ailments such as disease, as it has been doing for some time? Or should we try to push it further and expect from it more radical interference with human life, that is, the elimination of human ‘‘flaws,’’ including even death? Proponents of such far-reaching human enhancement are mostly termed transhumanists (a.o., Bostrom 2004; Moravec 1990; Kurzweil 2005). These authors forecast an imminent future, hastened by current bio, info, and nanotechnological developments, in which the human being as we know it will have given way to the posthuman through a fusion with technology. Over and against this position, the so-called bioconservatives, including such well-known and established figures as Fukuyama (2002) and Sandel (2007), argue for the conservation and protection of some human (or humanistic) kernel. According to these opponents of ‘‘deep’’ human enhancement, posthumanity is not at all something to strive for: there remains some intrinsic value within the human being outside of the realm of technology, to cherish and safeguard." (4-5) THIS IS BEAUTIFUL IT'S SO MUCH MORE CONCISE THAN I COULD HAVE MADE IT -> "These two views are bound in all their disagreement by a shared ontological premise that goes against the grain of most of the aforesaid fields’ findings. Whereas these fields have declared and mapped the fundamentally hybrid stature of the human being, many transhumanists and bioconservatives still perceive human being and technological being as entities that can in any way be distinguished from each other—be they subsequently kept apart or fused together. Strangely enough, while this discussion of transhumanists versus bioconservatives figures relatively prominently in the public debate, the ‘‘hybrid’’ discourses are much less known." (5) -> "Dystopic posthumanism can largely be equated with bioconservatism. Liberal posthumanism corresponds to transhumanism. The other two types have in common that they offer alternatives to bioconservatism as well as transhumanism. Radical posthumanism gathers theorists from feminist studies, cultural theory, cyborgology, and science and technology studies (STS); for instance Haraway and Hayles" (5) Now this is QUITE fascinating, I did not know this!!! -> "Here remains some incongruity that is only partly solved by either Sharon or Coeckelbergh. True enough, it is solved to the extent that it’s reframed on a different plane. The political and existential negotiations about the location of the ‘‘borderline’’ are the sites upon which human being is constituted. Instead of starting with an idea of human nature and on that basis developing a plea ‘‘pro’’ or ‘‘contra,’’ as liberal and dystopic posthumanists do, Sharon and Coeckelbergh turn the discussion upside down. They ground their argument in a concept of technologically mediated being-in-the-world, that in its everyday guise takes the form of the aforementioned negotiations. However, within that context of negotiation, the specific location of said borderline is still up for grabs and for discussion." (11) Ok, so now to actually do a full analysis here...

"Posthuman Dignity" (Bostrum, ); -> "What we are is not a function solely of our DNA but also of our technological and social context. Human nature in this broader sense is dynamic, partially human-made, and improvable. Our current extended phenotypes (and the lives that we lead) are markedly different from those of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. We read and write, we wear clothes, we live in cities, we earn money and buy food from the supermarket, we call people on the telephone, watch television, read newspapers, drive cars, file taxes, vote in national elections, women give birth in hospitals, life-expectancy is three times longer than in the Pleistocene, we know that the Earth is round and that stars are large gas clouds lit from inside by nuclear fusion, and that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old and enormously big. In the eyes of a hunter-gatherer, we might already appear ‘posthuman’. Yet these radical extensions of human capabilities – some of them biological, others external – have not divested us of moral status or dehumanized us in the sense of making us generally unworthy and base." (12)

__NOTES__ So thus far I am looking at two sort of theories in contemporary literature WRT "huamn" -- one, the more 'bioconservatve' view (though I don't have literature to link this!!!!) is the "essentialist" idea, which Nelkin and Wade only. This perspective -- that "human nature" is tied-to "physicality" or to "DNA", appears to be a more historically-inherited belief, as-per Wade's paper. This having been said, BOTH of these definitions differ from those which Bostrum and Wiki use. -->> As a result, however, I do think I can link Wade and Nelkin's ideas to how the ST group views "humanity"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Granted I've not yet found a single source which confirms my H+ views on "humanity" (e.g. in-line iwth Bostrum and Wikipedia, that is to say, "human nature is the traits or characteristics, which are not tied-to physical flesh or to DNA"...

9:50pm, THE LITERATURE REVIEW IS ALMOST COMPLETE!!!!!! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

11:09pm, the majority of the Literature Review is complete, I find myself running out of steam. Tomorrow-morning I will finish the Literature Review and then move directly into the Bodies I think. All I am missing from the Lit Review is 7 more Exclusions, and the one Included Space/Intro.

I also may do part of the Methodology tomorrow? Not certain of this. I think getting the Bodies and Conclusion done first is the highest priority...



11:52am, Literature review is complete! Now I just have the Methodology, and Body, and Conclusion.... so I'm really not that close to being done at all. Hooray. Onto the Body!

3:53pm mostly done with body 1, still needs sopmehting more to finish discusion of H+ and Humanity and I;m tyring to type this fast so WIKI WOLL NOT DELETE THE EFFING SENTENCE.

Can't go into the Digital Divide, we don't have time for that... or Kim Fortun's idea of an "enunicatory community"...

1:53pm, Body 1 and Body 2 sortof done? I can't think off the top of my head what I'm missing for those, so I'm ending them for now...

And so we continue... Still got Body3,4, Conclusion, Epilogue, and Methodology to do. Bleargh.

3:42pm, Body 3 partially done.

5:12 Body 3 is very much mroe complete now!!!

-> We don't really have the time to go-through discussion or analysis of "homo faber," , which is something Brandon recommended to us.

x < 8:38pm, Concluding Contributions is greatly begun and mostly done. I just need more work to the Overview of Arguments.

11:27pm, Epilogue mostly complete... Now to do the Methodology, before finishing the Bodies and Conclusion

1:32am, DRAFT 1 COMPLETE.