[XORK] [BORK]Re: "National state view", (was: [SPORK] Loving The Troops)

Tom tomwhore@slack.net
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:59:23 -0500 (EST)


On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:

--]On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Joseph S Barrera III wrote:
--]
--]> Eugen Leitl wrote:
--]> > Nation-states are terribly young as far as I'm concerned.
--]>
--]> You are terribly young as far as nation-states are concerned.
--]
--]Nation-states don't look consciously at evolution of spacetime since the
--]original ground zero. They're just dumb brutes, after all, currently at
--]least. It's thus our job to track the evolution of universal bits in tiny
--]confinements of our cranium.

Nationstate, if you are keeping score, are teh sum total of the power
structures and hiveorganizations taht inhabit them at any given point int
he neospacetime particular. You can not , nor should not, difer to teh
outmoded prekraginization of mediated states as forces unto thier own
worst mindstates. It is perhpas better to say taht in a juxtopostion of
Fullerine metaphores and even Hyackian semiphores a real benchmark for our
neostatis musings.

Now dont get me wrong, next to pickling the protogalactic cucumberance of
timesapce and its second cousin, elbow room, I am right there with ya. But
to take the extream, and I do mean extream, case taht you are positing is
simple to miss the point.

That being, in a truly posthumanaist transspactial vernacular it is
encumbent on you, not Jeff or Breg or even Lloyd WOod, to make the case
for prenaturalism or even, perish the thought, a throwback to a
pastorialdarwinism with shades of trotskism.

--]
--]It is very difficult to transcend the human condition without realizing
--]what it is, down to minuscule detail.



No its not, prove me wrong.


-tomwsmf