naturalism, paradise on earth, relations... i heard some fuzzy attempts to approach these topics.<br /> in my work, i propose a mathematcally-exact system, to describe and predict human relations,<br /> in a culture, that also works in a post-collapse world, in small groups of 150 people. book:<br /> pallas. who are my friends. group composition by personality type.<br /> github .com /milahu /alchi

Thinking we know everything also makes us think there's nothing left to learn.

This has really important consequences in terms of post-humanist thinking! If we presume that there is a true definition of anything, we are allowing experience, culture, language to limit us. It is better to presume an every shifting definition of the human that responds to the situation at hand. Starting a discussion of the human with the idea that we all obviously know what a human is, is extremely limiting.

The fear of infection and death is still present in the post human world.

Ah ha! I was wondering how this was related to post-humanism. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I'm only finally making these connections. So by expanding this view of rhetoric, "things" can persuade, too.

Like annotations-on-annotations-on-annotations, but less human-centric?

After last week, we can probably agree that "no"--it isn't. Vatz and Bitzer were talking inside the same "box," regarding the speaker, audience, and context as discrete parts, and the post-human is part of the movement which pushes us outside that box, wanting to argue that the parts are not, in fact, discrete.