Extropian, extropian, and line-drawing
From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 10:37:12 MDT
[This is a repost of a message I just send. I thought it would help to
put it under a more fitting subject heading.]
Eugene Leitl wrote:
No, honestly. Any successfull memetic cluster has to have erosion
protection. Namespace attack is still the most difficult to handle
DoS.
At 10:38 PM 6/8/00, Brian Atkins wrote:
Everyone has their own view of what it means to be an Extropian. The
obvious problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you have
mormons, communists, etc. suddenly saying they believe they are
Extropians,
where are we headed then? I think the principles are there to provide
some
basic level, or backbone, of structure to draw that needed line. And if
you fall to the other side of the line, then I don't think you can
reasonably argue that you are an Extropian. There is nothing wrong
with that, but I think people should go make their own sets of basic
principles that they can live with; call it Queenetropy or Crocktropy
or whatever, but identify yourself with some kind of word with some
REAL MEANING behind it. [...[
I think Commissioner Gordon just flashed the Bat Signal, so here I am.
:-)
I agree with Eugene that a coherent memetic cluster needs protection
against erosion. So not everyone who calls themselves
"Extropian" will be using the term reasonably. On the other
hand, as I've demonstrated over the last ten years, the statement of what
it means to be extropian does develop and (I believe) improve over
time.
I also agree with Brian in what I take to be his main thrust. I
appreciate Brian's stepping up to the plate to defend the integrity of
"Extropian". It does indeed mean something determinate to be
"an Extropian" or to be "extropian". However, I am
not comfortable with the image of drawing a sharp line. If we draw a
line, we will have to say that there are two kinds of people in the
world--Extropians and non-Extropians. I'm right with Brian in agreeing
that there will be clear cases of people who are Extropians (even if they
have never heard of the philosophy). These will be those who assent to
(or would assent to) the Extropian Principles. Some people will clearly
be non-Extropians--those who reject the Principles. Yet I don't think it
follows that we should say that someone is or is not Extropian (or
extropian) in most cases.
Lee Daniel Crocker suggested that one point that might be made is that
"the use of words to identify things should be less rigorous than
set theory in some contexts". I agree with this. I suggest that we
think of "Extropian" and "extropian" as a fuzzy set.
Different people will be more or less extropian. I would not be
especially uncomfortable with someone describing themselves as Extropian
even if they had reservations about one of the Principles (or had a
variant reinterpretation of a principle). I do go along with Brian in
that a full-fledged Extropian is someone who matches the set the most
closely, that is, someone who assents to all the Principles. Two points
about this:
(1) We might want to encourage people to call themselves capital
"E" Extropians only if they feel comfortable agreeing with all
the Principles. However, we should not discourage people from describing
themselves as "extropian" (with a small "e") if they
agree with much or most of the Extropian Principles. It *is* a fuzzy set
(Lee Daniel will shoot me for using "is" and "fuzzy"
together...), so this makes sense to me. Natasha's point about inclusion
resonates strongly with me. As does QueenMuse's reference to Catholic (or
any religious) dogma. I do not want to push people, telling them
"you're not extropian" when they may agree with the Extropian
Principles in many ways. I'd rather welcome them and include them,
fostering their extropian attitudes while challenging their remaining
non-extropian attitudes in a respectful but firm way.
I don't especially like to take the role of saying "everyone's right
here", but I suppose I am doing something like that. Brian's concern
to protect the integrity of the memeplex and the meaningfulness of the
terms gets my complete support. At the same time, I don't think doing
this requires drawing a sharp line, and it certainly doesn't require
excluding those who we think are on the far side of the line. (Not that I
think Brian was doing the latter.) I think it would be sensible to
reserve "Extropian" for those who affirm all or practically all
of the Principles. But "extropian" as an adjective can apply to
varying degrees. Even in the former case, someone might reasonably say
"I am an Extropian, except that I have reservations about Principle
X)".
(2) This is a slightly different point, but bears re-iterating: The
Extropian Principles are *not* statements of specific beliefs. They are
expressions of basic values and attitudes. I'm not sure that everyone has
grasped this, since I see mention of particular technologies such as
cryonics and nanotechnology in this discussion. Nowhere in the Principles
does it say that being Extropian/extropian requires accepting the
desirability or workability of particular technologies. Quite the
contrary. I deliberately designed the document so as to be maximally open
to differing means of reaching shared goals and implementing shared
values. The Principles are about as non-limiting as they can be while
preserving the integrity of their content.
I do think we should be very careful in labeling specific activities as
Extropian or non-Extropian (with or without the capital "e").
Whether some activity contributes to living extropically depends very
much on context--on the individual person, their abilities, their
aptitudes, their propensities, and their circumstances. Someone once said
that dancing was not very extropian. I found that quite narrow-minded.
Dancing, gardening, listening to music, taking a nap, all can be
perfectly appropriate in context. We cannot be constantly out producing
and creating. Brian definitely reflects my own views in stressing that
Extropian thinking emphasizes challenge over comfort, but that should not
be taken to mean that you can never relax, smell the roses, and have fun.
All of these things are vital to enjoying our lives and to flourishing
and to expanding our selves. Yes, you can get too much of these things.
Again, it's a matter of context and balance.
So I'm with Brian in that we should be able to constructively challenge
each other regarding whether we are living extropically, and should be
helpful in suggesting ways of living more extropically (e.g. how to eat
for longevity, how to exercise healthily, how to develop "emotional
intelligence", how to improve our cognitive skills, how to develop
our social skills, how to relax most effectively in order to refuel, and
how to take pleasure in every day as much as possible). Let's just steer
clear of the approach that religion has mastered--that of excluding and
of criticizing without understanding of context.
Onward!
Max
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:05 MST