But, what you did say was along the lines of "We can get better memory, so we can remember more rationalist things like biases and heuristics! Gee, wouldn't that be nice!". (It sounded like an applause light to me.)

I see. Where, exactly, are you getting the "Gee, wouldn't that be nice!" element from?

I think that what you say is not surprising (as in agree with most of it), so the bits I quoted were what I thought to be the relevant parts, and the rest was "obvious" (and I agree with it).

I had a strong suspicion this was the case, which is why I have made several statements very similar to this. Perhaps I failed to sufficiently convey that what I was contributing wasn't something that was meant to be "un-obvious" in any specific detail, but rather was meant to be a new manner of thinking about those items.

In other words; I was hoping to introduce a new higher-order goal and maybe kick off organized efforts towards establishing goals in alignment with said goal.

For example (this is a rewrit/summary of your post):

... I can see how you would find that to be valid, but I do have a few thoughts here:

1. The notion of acrohumanism -- though not by this name -- predates my knowledge of the LessWrong community and most assuredly is not limited to it. Where LW agrees with its agenda(s), my history of thought and LW are in agreement.

2. The rephrasing of "reaching the upper bounds of the human condition" to "try to be the best possible person you can be" robs significant meaning from the statement, related to directional focus. Even with the additive caveat of "i.e.; optimise every aspect of themselves", I'm not sure the idea retains my intended message. Certainly, Google results for the query, "be the best person you can be" gets seven million hits, whereas "reach the upper bounds of the human condition" gets zero. This speaks to the dilution of the message. While they appear superficially related, the "best person" formulation implies that this is a minimization of flaws, whereas the "upper bounds" formulation implies the maximization of utilities.

2.a. -- Corollary: this touches on why I am leary of defining what the optimal human condition even is: it becomes a moral dilemma.

2.b. -- There is a secondary implication that 'reach the upper bounds of the human condition' implies that it is not the normal state for an arbitrary human being to be in this state. So, as trite as it seems, I'm discussing the idea of "being more human than human"

Yes! Definitely! But you don't need a 750 word post to define a new word.

I'm sure. But I also wanted to do more than merely provide the definition; I wanted to give practical examples and encourage the discussion of other practical skills or "tools". Which is why I discussed examples of such skills and their potential benefits.

Thanks for introducing it to us. I believe that LW has considered memory-enhancement techniques even without using the term.

Definitely so. But it's mostly instances of re-inventing the wheel, with a rather "grab-bag" / haphazard approach with no ideal model of what the end-goal such efforts are tending towards aside from (what I can discern) "becoming a better rationalist"

Given the current state of the dialogue, I think it's time that I start putting an eye towards a potential future re-submission of this notion for consideration. I've gotten some good materials from you to digest towards that end, even if I did fail at sparking the dialogue I had hoped for.