RE: Use of the Extropian Principles

From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 11:38:22 MDT


Very good points. See Nozick's Philosophical Explanations for more.

Rafal

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury@aeiveos.com]
                Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 6:08 AM
                To: extropians@extropy.org
                Cc: max@maxmore.com
                Subject: Re: Use of the Extropian Principles

                Commenting on some of the Harvey Lee Max points (I wonder if
                there is an EverQuest character with that name...).

                As I recall around a month ago, I had a debate with someone
on
                the list where we both started hurling principles at each
other.
                I think I may have started it (I'll have to remember in the
                future to charge admission to the cat fights).

                The impression I'm left with was that it got into a
rock-paper-scissors
                situation with the different principles having different
merits
                vis-a-vis each other. That certainly in my mind makes for a
                rather dynamic philosophy. It also suggests that the
relative
                merits of the principles may be very context sensitive.

                I can think of environments, such as the "future" portrayed
in the
                Terminator movies where "practical optimism", "open society"
and
                "self-direction" might be the trump cards. An alternate
future
                where the luddites held the upper hand might place an
emphasis
                on "intelligent technology" and "rational thinking". A
police
                state designed to direct all thoughts towards the "party
line"
                might want to play "perpetual progress",
"self-transformantion"
                and "self-direction".

                It could be that we argue the relative importance of various
                principles given our personal biases for the futures we most
                desire and are most afraid of. Unfortunately we don't have
a
                body of "case law" to guide us with respect to individual
                discussions. And we also don't have a variety of contexts
in
                which interpretations of the principles can be viewed with
respect
                to their consequences. I suspect the "misunderstandings"
may
                be related to the time frame (and assumed environments) in
                which one is subjectively applying the principles.

                Robert
                



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST