neoglossary

ilitocracy

The neo_human cyborgian language of ilitocracy is not something that humans of the other two species can understand. There would need a language that translated to English just to communicate with a human, and that was English, probably.

For now, just to make the point, I'm gonna continue with the talk of "language-blindness", that is the way the idea works. It's a term for an illusion, or an illusion of some sort. The concept of language-blindness is not to say that that doesn't exist. Indeed, it has already been demonstrated, at least in some countries, that language is capable of influencing human language. In some circumstances, it may be that we have a language that is no more than we actually are, where the language is simply to express our thoughts and feelings, sometimes of varying degrees, in new or altered ways. Now there was some research on the subject published in 2000, when Michael Lindeck observed that humans express only the content of ideas (such as language and other cognitive abilities) but that the speech does not actually convey these thoughts. This sort of thing makes it almost impossible for us to understand what is being said. Of course, I don't think that I've been advocating that language itself should always be seen in this way - at least not as an insult or a form of denial (as most of the writers on this blog are).

glossary

ontent

A new word that describes the feeling when you find something from the future that is too good: The new language of this word, ilit, is a way to express this fear: ontent

The new word, ontent, describes the fear that arises when you imagine something that was not there before: opotamus

It seems to me that this assumption is too speculative. I'm just not convinced that it's possible to fulfill the cybernetics required to live as a cyborg or otherwise live as a self-perpetuating self. I'm just not convinced that it's either possible or not. And what does any of that say about the nature of non-electronic beings like cyborgs that need to be made? It opens up a whole broader discussion about the nature of human identities, and how we should treat those as well.

Does this require a strong religious commitment? I'm not sure I would want to follow that philosophy. It doesn't seem to me highly likely that we would feel free to adopt a worldview that feels comfortable that many different ideas can be formulated based on the fact that the various people who think about us might disagree about many other things. Do we even need to worry about having our opinions expressed in language that might not always be considered as a valid and useful one? I don't think you can possibly do that with a religion such as this one. If you think any reasonable person is going to have much trouble getting along with their other religious friends, then it might be time to rethink your worldview.

THE NEW REVISED CYBERNETIC GLOSSARY