From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 09:01:33 MDT
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 09:53 am, KPJ wrote:
> As I recall, people wrote the ``Principles'' to summarize what people
> thought
> about various matters at the time of the write-ups.
WRONG. The Principles were never a summary of various people's
thoughts. They are not a popularity contest.
> Somehow, when I read what people write about them today, it seems to me
> that
> some people now view them more as a some kind of holy Scriptures,
WRONG. No one claims this. Some people have misrepresented other
people as doing this as a means of discrediting them. Such victims of
this disinformation have consistently denied holding this viewpoint that
is being projected onto them. As such, this is a strawman position you
are arguing against, that is not held by anyone in this forum. You are
preaching to the choir and everyone would agree with you.
> and that
> the ``Principles'' no longer form a snap-shot of what people have
> thought
> (i.e., a debatable view), but instead form a corpus of undebatable
> Truth,
> which one must not discuss, at risk of eternal damnation.
You assume a false dichotomy. The Principles never were a snap-shot of
what people have thought. Nor are they a corpus of undebatable Truth.
Neither position is true. Both of these are erroneous assumptions. You
cannot support one by arguing against the other, because neither
viewpoint is correct.
> *I* believe that one should allow the list members to discuss even the
> semi-
> holy ``Principles'' if there exists no absolute agreement on them, and
> to me,
> PCR seems a rather good vehicle for that discussion.
This is the correct view of the principles. Strangely, you don't seem
to realize that PCR is part of the Rational Thought portion of the
principles themselves. They suggest challenging all principles and
using rational thought to analyze such principles. The principles
themselves, and all those who hold the principles, agree with your
suggestion. I don't expect any extropians to argue your suggestion,
because it is a vital part of extropian philosophy.
> I believe the problem lies in the first sentence quoted.
> Rewritten, it states that _you_ believe that from the statemnet
Rewritten, it would not be what I quoted. I do not believe what you
seem to think I do.
> As to what ``Principles'' people should or should not use, I leave to
> their
> own discretion, as I do not assume that there can only exist only *one*
> tool.
Nor do I, nor do the Principles.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST