Have you read the fun theory sequence? If you have and think it isn't relevant, then I misunderstand your point here to a greater degree than I thought. If you haven't read it then go read it.

I haven't read it deeply. I was hoping to get insight as to how you feel it should "interact". It is entirely plausible that I may incorporate elements of said sequence into the body of lore of acrohumanism. I will note that from what I myself have seen, there is a categorical difference between "being free to optimize" and having optimization itself as a higher-order goal. (Part of this is possibly resultant from my having a low value on hedonism in general, which seems to be a primary focus of the Fun Theory sequence. I would even go so far as to state that my idea of acrohumanism would have anti-hedonistic results: it takes as a given the notion that one should never be satisfied with where he currently is on his personal optimization track; that he should be permanently dissatisfied.)

From the next paragraph: "I intentionally refrain from defining what form that optimization takes..."

Indeed. But I also gave several examples of what I meant by the term, and I associated it with other specific notions: transhumanism / posthumanism -- from these contextually my meaning should be obvious enough.

This is a point, however, I freely recognize I am currently weak on. I do not -- morally cannot -- assert that I am fit to determine what universally optimal would be for all persons. But I do not believe that optimization itself -- augmentation of the self to within whatever tolerance-limits our biological frailties limit us -- is an impossible topic.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say, so I can't really answer this.

Fair enough. Are there any specific points you believe I could clarify?