“There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”
I hereby point you to a recent series of posts on neurodiversity and cognitive liberty, beginning with a post by Casey Rae-Hunter, who identifies himself as an adult with Asperger's, and continuing with his follow-up post, which aims to clarify how neurodiveristy differs from cognitive liberty. The discussion is summarized in a post by George Dvorksy that fed to the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
Rae-Hunter's Principles of Cognitive Liberty... [My comments are bracketed.]
"1. Cognitive liberty is the basic right of an individual to pursue potentially beneficial psychological/neurological trajectories. If the individual is unable to make these choices themselves, than it is the right of their closest family members to make them, provided they are not coerced by the medical establishment or prevailing social strata. [I don't agree that the last sentence is a forgone conclusion. A non-family advocate, such as a case worker, may do more to actually advocate for the individual in many cases.]
2. Cognitive liberty recognizes that information and education are key to making informed choices. In the absence of such information, cognitive libertarians will advocate for the fullest range of data in when considering treatment options or lifestyle planning.
3. Cognitive liberty recognizes the range of psychological profiles in both the neurotypical world and otherwise. Until and unless an individual's psychology can be determined as infringing on another individual's cognitive liberty, they are free to pursue or not pursue strategies for conventional adaptation, possible enhancement or any other cognitive application — actual or postulatory.
4. Cognitive liberty recognizes the right to pharmacological experimentation, within existing legal structures. Where those structures are not beneficial or unnecessarily inhibit potentially useful individual research, cognitive libertarians reserve the right to challenge legal frameworks (and, where appropriate and with full comprehension of the punitive risks, step beyond them).
5. Cognitive liberty recognizes the essential function of the governmental regulatory apparatus, but places others' cognitive liberty ahead of the societal, legal or bureaucratic status quo. Through education, research and advocacy, cognitive libertarians can and should present information to policymakers that will enhance governmental comprehension of current and emerging issues. Where decisions are made, they must be transparent and open to debate.
6. Cognitive liberty is not an outlier of the neurodiversity movement. It is a separate, but complimentary effort to enhance understanding about the range of possibilities in self-directed cognition."
This is definitely a good start to defining the objectives and guiding principles of cognitive libertarians, but I would like to illuminate one point that may have gotten lost in the initial discussions.
The issues of neurodiversity and cognitive liberty are not restricted to autistics and those in the autism spectrum, though you might be forgiven for thinking that. Dvorsky attempts to extend the discussion a bit by referring to forced modification of sociopathic tendencies, though his support for the idea of cognitive liberty dodges a bit here - "I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…" (George, dude! I expect a follow-up post from you on this. Give it plenty of thought.)
Potent threats to cognitive liberty can also come from a variety of social pressures faced by 'normal' people, as discussed in a recent posting here, or from the idea that anything that can be classified as a mental pathology should be treated according to current medical guidelines.
We are constantly redefining what it means to be human. Some of these ideas still distress us 150 years after they first appeared. And we now have it within our grasp to artificially change how we express our humanity. It is up to us to make sure that this technology serves our highest ideals about humanity, not our lowest fears.
"One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment