From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 10:31:58 MDT
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 10:29 am, Reason wrote:
> --> Harvey Newstrom
>> You are perfectly clear, but inaccurate. The Extropian Principles are
>> NOT an arbitrary list of desired goals reached by consensus. They are
>> objective realities, repeatably observed, scientifically measurable,
>> and
>> statistically provable. demonstrably good. They can be objectively
>> defended. They are NOT a consensus document of group opinion.
>
> Well good, now we're getting somewhere. From the principals:
>
> "These Principles are not presented as absolute truths or universal
> values.
> The Principles codify and express those attitudes and approaches
> affirmed by
> those who describe themselves as "Extropian"."
>
> Which would seem to support my thesis. The principals are written in the
> form of "this is what we want" or "this is what we desire." You can
> rationalize the principals all you like, (and doing so is good, of
> course,
> IMHO), but you cannot claim that they are objectively good.
OK. This does seem to be the exact point of our disagreement.
I view the Principles as being a description of objective trends of
humanity and best practices devised by humanity. I derive my beliefs as
an Extropian from the Principles because they are objective and accurate
or best. Some Principles are objectively real trends such as boundless
expansion, while others are best-practices devised by humans, such as
open society, that are objectively good and can be demonstrated to work
better.
You seem to view the Principles as being a wish-list of goals that a
bunch of Extropians put together. You think Extropians defined their
beliefs in terms of what they wanted, and then wrote the Principles as a
manifesto supporting their goals. You do not think they were derived
from objectively observed data or that they can be demonstrated to be
superior to other methods. Reality or history may or may not reflect
what the Extropian Principles wish to be true. The methods described,
such as open society or rational thought, are merely our preferred modes
but are not objectively superior to any other arbitrarily chosen modes.
Is this accurate? We seem to be diametrically opposed:
Reality --> Principles --> Beliefs --> Me
You --> Beliefs --> Principles --> Reality
>> The Extropian Principles are
>> objective trends that actually shape objective reality. These trends
>> can be measured, analyzed, proven, and predicted. There is nothing
>> subjective or unprovable about these trends.
>
> No, I really have to disagree with you there. I'm not seeing plain old
> descriptions of trends that just happen to exist; the Principals I'm
> reading
> are a statement of desire and approval for particular trends. Meaning
> that
> these trends are being measured against some subjective yardstick
> collection.
>
> So yeah, I'm prepared to jump in the boat with you on the last sentence
> above, but the rest of it...hmm.
>
>> The Extropian Principles literally exist and are objectively
>> measurable. I do not see how anybody can argue that they are
>> subjective
>> or unsupportable.
>
> I'm arguing that the Principals contain trends and the expressed desire
> for
> these trends. It's that desire, approval, rating of Goodness, whatever
> else
> you want to call it that is subjective. There is no external standard
> for
> valuing human opinions of a particular entity/ethical ruleset/color/set
> of
> trends.
>
> Can we get some arbitration here from the guy that wrote the thing? :)
It certainly would be interesting to see what Max was thinking when he
wrote the thing.
Max, what the hell were you thinking when you wrote the thing? :-)
-- 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