TransHumanism: Jolie and GaGa, poster children

I really don't like it when people create threads and don't explain directly what they mean. They dance around questions and won't directly answer them and want people to play the (try and guess what I am saying) game; sooooooo...annoying!

i'm trying to answer as much as i can before i crash out for the night (and it's 7:32 am!?)

it's also frustrating having to explain to someone at around post #10 what i've already alluded to in post #1.
that's *my* fault for being vague.. i'll address that tomorrow as best i can.

it is not my intention to waste anyone's time here.
ima sleep now..

Are you conveying that they are implanting specific trans humanist imagery to be methodically created in the real world?

Originally posted by UNIT76

it's about the image that's going out.. is your brain genre-specific?

No unity I wouldn't consider myself genre-specific, and I do understand what you seem to saying. I am just pointing out that Lady Gaga specifically seems to actually be concerned about the same trend.

hey it's cool, just keep your eyes open to this scene and you'll be seeing what i mean in a year or two.

To what "scene" are you referring, the art scene or the trans humanistic scene. I think you are confusing the two. I am an artist and what I see when it comes to your example of Lady GaGa specifically is her own artistic statement against the idea that people should be encouraged to mutilate their bodies in order to fit in with the current trend of what is and what is not attractive. Her concerns and your concerns are very similar.

that's right, the "personal statement" made by Jolie recently is somewhat different, i'll give you that

Are you really insinuating that Jolies choice to remove her breasts is some kind of fashion statement ?

GaGa (temp prosthetic??) quoted as saying "They're my bones"
..have you heard her explain the symbolism of 'the egg' (etc) and the transformation she hopes for humanity?
it's much better when you hear it from their own mouths.
..and i thought this was somewhat already established of GaGa?

It is clear by your statements here that you must not have read the interview that you have quoted from, and I do realize that performance art in particular can get a little existential, but she is clearly saying that these are not actually implants but a representative visual to express her inner artistic mood at the time. They are Not permanent.

www.nydailynews.com...

The egg you speak of was a collaborative art piece with designer Hussein Chalayan. Again the artists symbolism here is about envisioning a world without racism or bias and the idea that we should be encouraged to love ourselves for who we are instead of having to resort to plastic surgeries to fit in. Again, you and she seem to have very similar concerns. Here she explains very clearly at about 2:33

www.youtube.com...


Penny

Originally posted by UNIT76

forgot to address this -

"I also find it interesting that you seem to focus on a handful of celebrities and not the more insidious changes and pressures to maintain a certain appearance that are all around us. Rhinoplasty , chin lifts, tummy tucks and the like"

*sigh* ....what do you think i was refering to when i mentioned the blonde celebs in the very first post (THAT was phase 1) ....i can see there is still a LOT of explaining to do

I do understand what you meant by phase one, what I am trying to point out to you is that phase 2 might be better exemplified by, lets say, Catherine Zeta Jones for example.

Penny

reply to post by UNIT76


First off Transhumanism, a place to start learning about it, follow links, do extra research as it's wiki so it's not always correct.

Secondly, the picture of jolie is from this Maleficent, the movie. A movie to come out in 2014. She has done nothing to her face that would equate to transhumanism. It's a movie.

Third, Jolie's double mastectomy was not really a "personal statement". Here you can read about why she got it done, and how she and brad pitt kept it secret until it was done. To make it short, Jolie's mother died of cervical cancer, she loves her kids and husband so she got a test to see if she had certain cancer genes. Now, after her double mastectomy, she is 90% less likely to get breast cancer and die.
While I don't personally get the whole celebrity cult thing, how dare you insinuate that she did such a thing to make a statement or to up her celebrity status. How crass, how rude.



In summation, I suggest you better educate yourself on transhumanism and try not to offhandedly libel
people going through personal issues like cancer.
...wish there was a head shaking icon.

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by UNIT76

 

First off Transhumanism, a place to start learning about it, follow links, do extra research as it's wiki so it's not always correct.

Secondly, the picture of jolie is from this Maleficent, the movie. A movie to come out in 2014. She has done nothing to her face that would equate to transhumanism. It's a movie.

Third, Jolie's double mastectomy was not really a "personal statement". Here you can read about why she got it done, and how she and brad pitt kept it secret until it was done. To make it short, Jolie's mother died of cervical cancer, she loves her kids and husband so she got a test to see if she had certain cancer genes. Now, after her double mastectomy, she is 90% less likely to get breast cancer and die.
While I don't personally get the whole celebrity cult thing, how dare you insinuate that she did such a thing to make a statement or to up her celebrity status. How crass, how rude.



In summation, I suggest you better educate yourself on transhumanism and try not to offhandedly libel
people going through personal issues like cancer.
...wish there was a head shaking icon.

1 I cant wait for trans/post humanism

2 I will never see this movie or see this picture ,god willing.

3. Angelina Jolie ,like 90% of Hollywood, is a certifiable nut job . Who has no business running around loose .
let alone with a crazy husband ,millions of dollars ,and (most importantly ) KIDS!

to say you are having you breasts removed because you have some stupid gene is loony. To say removal will reduce your chances 90%? DAM STRAIGHT! YOU HAVE NO BREASTS! and reduced 90% from a starting point if what? With a family history like that you have regular mammograms and self checks. You don't have your breasts removed.

Really think about that would you have your breasts/balls removed because one day you might have cancer? Hell no.

would I put it past her to do it for some crazy Hollywood bs? Hell no.

Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

"Mr. Secretary-General,

We, scientists, public figures and business leaders from Russia, the USA, the UK, and Canada as well as participants of the Second International Global Future 2045 Congress (15-16 June 2013, New York) would like to bring to your attention a number of serious issues.

The world stands on the threshold of global change. Ecological, political, anthropological, economic and other crises are intensifying. Wars are waged, resources wasted senselessly, and the planet is being polluted. Society is experiencing a crisis of goals and values, while science and technology are providing unprecedented opportunity for advancement. National leaders remain focused on short-term internal stability, without paying sufficient attention to the opportunities for the future of civilization.

The key components of these studies are:

1. The construction of anthropomorphic avatar robots—artificial bodies.

2. The creation of telepresence robotic systems for long-distance control of avatars.

3. The development of brain–computer interfaces for direct mental control of an avatar.

4. Development of life-extension technologies involving life-support systems for the human brain integrated with an artificial Avatar body.

Signed by:

Dmitry Itskov — Founder of the 2045 Initiative. President of the Global Future 2045 congress.
Ray Kurzweil — Director of Engineering, Google; futurist and inventor, co-founder, Singularity University, and author of How to Create a Mind.
Dr. James Martin — British author and entrepreneur and the largest individual benefactor to the University of Oxford in its 900-year history.
Dr. Theodore Berger — USC Professor, brain prosthesis technology developer.
Dr. Peter H. Diamandis — Founder and Chairman, X Prize Foundation, co-founder, Singularity University, author of Abundance.
Dr. Robert Thurman — Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia University. Author and tireless proponent of peace.
Dr. Amit Goswami — Professor Emeritus from the Theoretical Physics Department of the University of Oregon.
Dr. David Hanson — Robotics designer and researcher, creating androids: humanlike robots with intelligence and feelings.
Dr. Alexander Kaplan — Psychophysiologist, founder of the first Russian Brain-Computer Interface laboratory.
Dr. Ben Goertzel — Artificial General Intelligence researcher and entrepreneur. Founder, OpenCog Project. CEO, Novamente LLC.
Dr. Natasha Vita-More — Human enhancement theorist, university lecturer, co-editor The Transhumanist Reader on the philosophy of self-directed human evolution.
Dr. Randal Koene — Head of Carboncopies.org, author of the concept of Substrate-Independent Minds (SIM).
Dr. Anders Sandberg — Researcher, Future of Humanity Institute, and science debater, futurist, author of the Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap.
Dr. Stuart Hameroff — Neuro-anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona. Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory.
Dr. Ken Hayworth — President of the Brain Preservation Foundation, and Senior Scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Janelia Farm Research Campus.
Dr. David Dubrovsky — Russian philosopher, psychologist and expert in the field of analytical philosophy of mind.
Dr. Witali L. Dunin-Barkowski — Head of the Russian project for reverse brain engineering. Professor. Founder of the Russian Association of Neuroinformatics.
Dr. Alexander Panov — Astrophysicist, author of the Snooks-Panovcurve which describes the singularity.
Dr. William Bushell — MIT-affiliated religious anthropologist.
Lazar Puhalo — Archbishop (ret.) of Ottawa of the Orthodox Church in America.
Swami Vishnudevananda Giri Ji Maharaj — Russian yoga master, philosopher, futurologist.
Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill — Cooperman/Ross Endowed Professor in Honor of Sister Rose Thering at Seton Hall University.
Nigel Ackland — Pioneering user of the world's most advanced bionic artificial arm."

2045 Initiative

Originally posted by Another_Nut

to say you are having you breasts removed because you have some stupid gene is loony. To say removal will reduce your chances 90%? DAM STRAIGHT! YOU HAVE NO BREASTS! and reduced 90% from a starting point if what? With a family history like that you have regular mammograms and self checks. You don't have your breasts removed.

Really think about that would you have your breasts/balls removed because one day you might have cancer? Hell no.

would I put it past her to do it for some crazy Hollywood bs? Hell no.

Speaking from the perspective of an ovarian cancer survivor, Had I known ahead of time I would have most definitely had my ovaries removed. I am honestly flabbergasted that so many are reacting this way. Would some be as upset had she had them augmented ?

Penny

reply to post by UNIT76

this is what i'm talking about... circular logic..
so... WHAT IS THE (MODERN) TREND, THEN???

Circular logic? I kind of feel like you don't know what that phrase means. There's nothing circular to it whatsoever. Hollywood is driven by trends, flat out

Lady Gaga found a style that caught on worldwide. It became a trend. You can GUARANTEE that the costume designer for that movie was using Lady Gaga as an inspiration for the character design.

Furthermore, why is it that you use thi one small piece of what I wrote, and ignore the OBVIOUS, GLARING point that I made that proves this theory as ridiculous as it is: that THIS IS A CHARACTER. A DESIGNED CHARACTER.

OP

I think you dont understand the definition of transhumanism

Originally posted by pennylemon

Originally posted by Another_Nut

to say you are having you breasts removed because you have some stupid gene is loony. To say removal will reduce your chances 90%? DAM STRAIGHT! YOU HAVE NO BREASTS! and reduced 90% from a starting point if what? With a family history like that you have regular mammograms and self checks. You don't have your breasts removed.

Really think about that would you have your breasts/balls removed because one day you might have cancer? Hell no.

would I put it past her to do it for some crazy Hollywood bs? Hell no.

Speaking from the perspective of an ovarian cancer survivor, Had I known ahead of time I would have most definitely had my ovaries removed. I am honestly flabbergasted that so many are reacting this way. Would some be as upset had she had them augmented ?

Penny

Lies.

if I had told you at at 35 that you have a gene that increases your chance of lung cancer from

1 in 1000000 to 1 in 10000

Now i give you two options

You can be checked monthly by a doctor and so even if you do get it it is not deadly )since we would have caught it early and so our options are open to everything from home remedy's to keno.

Or

i could reduce that chance of cancer by 50% (today) just by REMOVING A LUNG!

What would you say?

i hate fake boobs.

Period .

I dislike the Hollywood loony scene almost as much . Which she isdeffinatly a part of . If you believe her whack job story that's fine.

But don't act like there is no reason to call it (Angelina) like we sees it (another Hollywood nut)

reply to post by Another_Nut

Lies. if I had told you at at 35 that you have a gene that increases your chance of lung cancer from 1 in 1000000 to 1 in 10000 Now i give you two options You can be checked monthly by a doctor and so even if you do get it it is not deadly )since we would have caught it early and so our options are open to everything from home remedy's to keno. Or i could reduce that chance of cancer by 50% (today) just by REMOVING A LUNG! What would you say? i hate fake boobs. Period . I dislike the Hollywood loony scene almost as much . Which she isdeffinatly a part of . If you believe her whack job story that's fine. But don't act like there is no reason to call it (Angelina) like we sees it (another Hollywood nut)

I genuinely hope that you are speaking from personal experience here and not postulating about what you would do you found yourself in this situation, and clearly you are not calling me a liar, are you ?

Fighting certain cancers like breast or ovarian is not as easy as you are insinuating here. It is a scary, horrible and Extremely Painful experience that I would not expect anyone to willfully choose.

With that said, I believe your OP was about Trans-humanism specifically, and not about the questionable decisions made by so called 'hollywood nutjobs". If this is the case, I do believe a new thread might be in order.

Penny

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I felt compelled to to add here that while I do agree that Hollywood does tend to redesign well loved characters to fit in with more modern trends, this might be one of the only designs in resent memory that has remained pretty much true to the original design. She was created in 1959 by artist Marc Davis and is actually inspired by the dancer, Jane Fowler.

I also wanted to add that your pirate analogy was IMO spot on and pretty dang funny.

Penny.

Are you conveying that they are implanting specific trans humanist imagery to be methodically created in the real world?

yes. the pics i've posted are something like artists concepts and suggestions.

i'll try to address this (pennylemon)

To what "scene" are you referring, the art scene or the trans humanistic scene. I think you are confusing the two. I am an artist and what I see when it comes to your example of Lady GaGa specifically is her own artistic statement against the idea that people should be encouraged to mutilate their bodies in order to fit in with the current trend of what is and what is not attractive. Her concerns and your concerns are very similar.

the scene i'm refering to is "life" (art imitates life imitates art.. we say this for a reason) i said: "watch the scene" (the scene where art will imitate life which will then imitate art and so on... ) ...this is starting to make a little more sense now i hope?
..you said you get where i'm coming from about the brain (is it genre-specific) ..i said it's about the image that goes out. so when you see gaga playing both roles how do you know which one is which? (and here we are at opposite ends of the spectrum) - the problem is, they (advertiser) *never* just come out and say what they mean, do they? (..if they did, we wouldn't be disputing the message) ..when gaga claims "they're her bones" she's making a reference to her new look (expression) being something 'at her core' (her core values) - these are mixed messages and i think there are people out there who readily swallow it up, i won't claim to know the psychology of the average gaga fan but i know there are a lot of broken/wounded people out there who'll jump at the chance for a 'new beginning' ..we're left to 'decipher' all these images and obscure messages. i hope this makes sense..

GaGa, is wearing a temporary prosthetic and she has made it clear that she is not a proponent of permanent changes to our appearance

(my bad again for being loose with the term 'subdermal implant' on gaga) ..i'll mention again the egg ritual (rebirthing) and remind us all that gaga "wants a world where people can be what they want to be" (and we all know how she feels about Lucifer, right?) ..you claim she's against body mutilation? ..so does gaga want a world where people are free to have body modifications or not?

Are you really insinuating that Jolies choice to remove her breasts is some kind of fashion statement ?

no, not at all. ...she did made a 'statement' later about it (..bad sense of humor on my part)

It is clear by your statements here that you must not have read the interview that you have quoted from, and I do realize that performance art in particular can get a little existential, but she is clearly saying that these are not actually implants but a representative visual to express her inner artistic mood at the time. They are Not permanent.

yeah it was late (i said sub dermal when i shoulda said prosthetic, slip-ups like that can be a problem) ...well, i didn't 'read' any interview, i just watched the footage. they can say all they want, it doesn't square up with the accompanying imagery (it seems to be too difficult to just come out and say what one means these days?)

The egg you speak of was a collaborative art piece with designer Hussein Chalayan. Again the artists symbolism here is about envisioning a world without racism or bias and the idea that we should be encouraged to love ourselves for who we are instead of having to resort to plastic surgeries to fit in. Again, you and she seem to have very similar concerns. Here she explains very clearly at about 2:33

again, they can 'say' all they want but it doesn't square up with the imagery.. so, she fights body mutilation by.... mutilating her body? (albiet temporarily?) ..what about the impressionable person out there who receives the message differently? (because the message is not clear) ..or how about when gaga emulates the baphomet? it might 'seem' like gaga and i are on the same side, but we're not.. i see what she does as sick, like dressing up as a burnt person to raise awareness for burnt people..

I do understand what you meant by phase one, what I am trying to point out to you is that phase 2 might be better exemplified by, lets say, Catherine Zeta Jones for example.

i'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.. i just see her as one of the many people that'll do anything to be famous, not many people know CZJ before she 'made it' as an actress, tried her hand at a recording career (anyone got her album?)

running out of space (continued in next post)

optimusprimal

First off Transhumanism, a place to start learning about it, follow links, do extra research as it's wiki so it's not always correct.

wow.. really?.. you're gonna wiki me? (yeah that head shaking icon'd be useful about now)

Secondly, the picture of jolie is from this Maleficent, the movie. A movie to come out in 2014. She has done nothing to her face that would equate to transhumanism. It's a movie.

what makes you think i didn't know it was a movie? ..because you thought i didn't know what trans humanism was? ...i've addressed this, it's about the image going out.

Third, Jolie's double mastectomy was not really a "personal statement". Here you can read about why she got it done, and how she and brad pitt kept it secret until it was done.

you're really on a roll now, aren't you? ..but she in fact *did* go on to make a 'personal statement' (press release) didn't she? ..addressed this in previous post

To make it short, Jolie's mother died of cervical cancer, she loves her kids and husband so she got a test to see if she had certain cancer genes. Now, after her double mastectomy, she is 90% less likely to get breast cancer and die.

hey you must be pretty healthy jumping to all those conclusions.. and now you've assumed i don't even know the story..

While I don't personally get the whole celebrity cult thing, how dare you insinuate that she did such a thing to make a statement or to up her celebrity status. How crass, how rude. In summation, I suggest you better educate yourself on transhumanism and try not to offhandedly libel people going through personal issues like cancer. ...wish there was a head shaking icon.

not getting the celeb cult thing seems to be the least of your problems, when and where did i insinuate any such thing? you've successfully jumped the gun on just about everything and contributed # all to the conversation..

but thanks for sticking your nose in anyway..

BABYBULL24 - thanks for posting. i didn't know Ray Kurtzweil had changed his tune.. i'll be looking into that info you've supplied (..and not at the wiki site)

pennylemon

Would some be as upset had she had them (breasts) augmented ?

believe it or not, not all of us guys see women as pieces of meat. we're also waiting for the day when they stop seeing themselves as pieces of meat and opting for these procedures. sorry to hear you had ovarian cancer.

captaintyinknots

Circular logic? I kind of feel like you don't know what that phrase means. There's nothing circular to it whatsoever. Hollywood is driven by trends, flat out

addressed in previous post (art imitates life imitates art..)

Lady Gaga found a style that caught on worldwide. It became a trend. You can GUARANTEE that the costume designer for that movie was using Lady Gaga as an inspiration for the character design.

look at what you've written here.. now think about what i'm saying to you...
WHERE DID GAGA "FIND" HER STYLE FROM (stolen from deceased former partner? hehe)
you've just said a movie costume designer was probably basing the Maleficent character on gaga

Furthermore, why is it that you use thi one small piece of what I wrote, and ignore the OBVIOUS, GLARING point that I made that proves this theory as ridiculous as it is: that THIS IS A CHARACTER. A DESIGNED CHARACTER.

addressed previously. repeated for the third time - it's about the image going out
this went exactly as expected (in circles)

anonywarp

I think you dont understand the definition of transhumanism

this is the kind of response that makes me think - i'll bet this person, if they ever found their child going through their wallet, they *wouldn't* call their child a "thief"

I felt compelled to to add here that while I do agree that Hollywood does tend to redesign well loved characters to fit in with more modern trends,

mid Christina Aguilera / Marlena Deitrich (female empowerment)

...it's all lies

reply to post by UNIT76

addressed in previous post (art imitates life imitates art..)

Here's the problem: this is art imitating art, if anything.

look at what you've written here.. now think about what i'm saying to you... WHERE DID GAGA "FIND" HER STYLE FROM (stolen from deceased former partner? hehe) you've just said a movie costume designer was probably basing the Maleficent character on gaga

Its a blend of a former friend and her own. So it is, like I said, her style, that caught on worldwide. Its became very popular. It has been mimicked in fashion and movies, as all popular trends are. This is in no way indicative of 'transhumanism', and the fact that you think it does worries me a little bit.

addressed previously. repeated for the third time - it's about the image going out this went exactly as expected (in circles)

Yeah, you are going in circles alright. You really, REALLY need to do some research on hollywood costume design before you make these silly claims.

In the end, it really is quite clear that you have neither an understanding of what transhumanism is, and that you have no idea about how costume and set design are created in movies.

Its a nice try, though. I guess.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Unity,

First of all I would like to say thank you for your willingness to respond to posts in such detail. It is obvious to me that you are genuinely alarmed by the fact that the media fueled obsession with celebrity can and does influence our culture to such a degree that we are more than willing to mutilate ourselves in order to fit in with the latest trend. If this is what you meant by trans-humanism than I would absolutely agree with you. I'm sure you will let me know if I have gotten it wrong so far.

To address your responses, I will say that yes, art imitates life and life imitates art, and celebrity has always influenced fashion. However, before the miracles of modern medicine and modern media the modifications were limited to waist lines and took much more time to catch on.

Your inference here is that the problem you have with Lady GaGa specifically is that her message, filtered through the main stream media of course, is unclear and has manipulated her fans into confusion about whats real and whats not real.This is simply not the case. Her fans know and she, in her own words has been very clear on this, that these are costumes. It seems to me that you are focused on GaGa as a negative influence not because she is a part of the mainstreams "phase 2" but because you perceive her to be some sort of freak. What may be blurry and unclear to you may not be so blurry and unclear to her fans. The fact that the main stream relentlessly attacks her unwillingness to conform should speak volumes. Are people flocking to their friendly neighborhood plastic surgeon to achieve that coveted Lady Gaga look, I don't believe they are. There was that guy in Denmark but that's a whole different conversation.

Could it be that to go as far as to consider her costuming as "sick" is an example of the media on your own perceptions. Isn't it more alarming that thousands upon thousands of beautiful young people are permanently making changes to their bodies to emulate Kate Middletons' perfect nose or Jennifer Anistons' perfect chin ? Are you saying that these kinds of things are acceptable because these women are what you would consider "beautiful". This to me is the mixed message, and these people more clearly illustrate the blurred line between whats real and unreal.

As the mother of a now adult daughter, I am glad that there are those who have successfully bucked the status quo and I simply do not see that as a negative influence.

Penny

reply to post by Another_Nut

to say you are having you breasts removed because you have some stupid gene is loony. To say removal will reduce your chances 90%? DAM STRAIGHT! YOU HAVE NO BREASTS! and reduced 90% from a starting point if what? With a family history like that you have regular mammograms and self checks. You don't have your breasts removed.

Your an idiot!......and you have no idea what you are talking about!

In November last year my wife, who was suffering from ovarian fibroids, was told she had a 95% chance of contracting ovarian cancer unless she had a radical hysterectomy, which she had 3 weeks later.

My wife is also a member of the Crolla family (google Crolla breast cancer gene) several of her female relatives who have been identified as having the faulty gene have undergone double mastectomy's, I'm not sure exactly how it works but whilst my wife does have the faulty BRCA2 gene, her chances of succumbing to breast cancer are now 20% since having her hysterectomy..........she's contemplating the mastectomy.

So you can spout your nonsense about "some stupid loony gene".....but my wife isn't a celebrity, she's just a wife and a mother.....a bit like Angelina Jolie when you strip away the "celebrity"


You can, and should, do all the "self checks" you like.....but this form of cancer is a bitch!.....and it's quick!

So to answer your uninformed statement....yes!....you do have your breasts removed ....if you want a half decent chance of survival!



sorry for the rant.

puz: i thought that this was about lady gaga having something cut of ?? and angela jolly having a mastektomy ? i know my spelling sucks

Originally posted by UNIT76
i knew they wouldn't disappoint...

...remember when it was just blonde females (singers, celebs, socialites, et al) who seemed to be clones of eachother? we all saw how that took off.

i hope you're ready for "phase 2"

[snip]

..what do you think the phase 3 clones will look like?

I fail to see anything even remotely 'cloning' here, but what's more you seem to have absolutely NO idea about what transhumanism is.

*facepalm*