From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 14:16:42 MDT
Hi Harvey,
Welcome back! (says Lee's public persona to Harvey's,
supplementing an offline expression)
> Why criticize the Extropian Principles once again?
In Pan Critical Rationalism, as you know, criticism is
seen as a good thing. Indeed, I often talk to two of
my friends for the primary purpose of soliciting criticism
of my beliefs. "Criticize this!" is a frequent challenge
I jokingly throw down, doing a funny-funny on the movie title
"Analyze This!".
As John Grigg pointed out, one reason that the Principles
seem so bullet-proof, (and people have a hard time finding
anything to quarrel with) is that they've been subjected
to intense criticism over the years. (The other reason
is that Max has good taste.) Yes, I guess I'll give up
eventually if no one can lay a finger on 'em :-)
> What are you trying to accomplish, Lee? I can't figure
> you out. You keep introducing and perpetuating threads
> that seem to question the validity of the Extropian
> Principles, the value of this List, and the validity
> of Extropy Institute itself.
I'll answer this for the benefit of others, if there are
any, who might be wondering, since you may already know
from what I've written so far. First, evidently my questions
only seem *to some* to be questioning the validity of the
Principles. It doesn't seem that way to me. In fact, I'm
*looking* for ways to criticize them (see answer above for
why), but not succeeding so far. I'm sure you remember:
criticism that sticks, rather than just bounces off, will
strengthen them in the long run.
> Yet, whenever you are called on it, you claim that it
> was a "thought experiment" or just random musings, and
> don't represent your own personal viewpoints at all.
Gee, sorry. But I don't think that I ever said that
my posts or suggestions were random musings or the
equivalent. At least, I never meant to say anything
like that. I never play devil's advocate or anything
(except maybe indulge in a little sarcasm sometimes).
> I can only imagine that you aren't accomplishing what
> you want, because you keep repeating the same topics
> over and over, ad nauseam.
>
> - About Rational Discussions on Extropians
> - Criticizing the Extropian Principles
> - Extropian Consciousness
> - Censorship
> - Relativism of values, ideas, rights, memes
> - The Turning Point
> - Use of the Extropian Principles
> - On Logic (was Use of the Extropian Principles)
> - The Extropian Principles
> - The Alleged Extropian Monopoly on Rational Inquiry
> - Freedom and Infanticide
> - Basic Logic
> - Arbitrariness of Ethics
> - Infanticide and Extropy
Hmm. So you see a common denominator there, eh? I don't,
not really. Perhaps I am questioning some things that a
lot of people take for granted, but if that's true, then
I guess I'd be proud of that. In fact, it would seem like
boasting to assert that "Lee fearlessly challenging what
others take for granted" was the common denominator. :-)
> I am tired of seeing the same discussions over and over. Perhaps if you
> made it clear what your purpose was, we could help steer the discussion
> toward an answer. Why do you keep testing theoretical scenarios on us
> to see how the list would react?
Well, to take the latest example that you are perhaps thinking
about, "About Rational Discussions on Extropians", I sincerely
wanted to know if people felt it would be out of place to talk
about differences between men and women. As I just mentioned
off list to you, and as I mentioned while replying to Natasha,
I'm fascinated by one particular factoid (or alleged factoid):
that women multitask better than men. That, if true, could
explain a lot! (Although I must HASTILY point out---since we
may have a big audience---that such differences *do not*
necessarily apply to individuals, and can have only statistical
validity at best.)
> Why do you keep questioning the validity or strength of
> Extropian philosophy, institutions and social groups?
I don't see it as expressing doubt about Extropianism, if
that's what you mean. Efforts to criticize aren't the same
as expressing doubt (as we know from PCR). As for the
associated institutions and social groups, I have more
confidence in them now than ever before, due to some
recent events.
> Are you promoting a position or trying to gather information?
Well, I promote openness, fearless search for the truth
(if that doesn't sound too pompous), tackling issues head-on,
and trying to get to the core of things... in general. That's
the only "position" that I know of that I'm promoting in all
those threads.
As for information, the only information I seek is to help
satisfy my own curiosity.
> If information, why do you keep asking the same sorts
> of questions over and over? Are the answers unacceptable?
True, sometimes I don't get answers. But often they're
very enlightening.
> Are you hoping the answers will change, or do you not
> understand the answers?
Probably I don't always understand the answers.
> The "censorship" thread was a waste of time. Everybody argued against
> you that there was no censorship by ExI, and in the end you claimed that
> you never believed there was censorship either.
Well, I thought it turned out quite nicely :-)
We even seemed to reach agreement. I think that
people know better what others mean by "censorship",
and we all got to express what kinds of censorship
we like and what kinds we don't like. (For example,
I like the kind that a high school principal might
impose if students wanted to run nude photographs
of other students in the school newspaper.)
> Seriously, I have no intention of going through another flame-war with
> you. Unless I can figure out what you want or what you are trying to
> do, I am not able to response. Please be clear as to your purpose,
> instead of asking us all to go through these pointless exercises that
> always seem to lead nowhere.
Okay, I've tried to be clear as to my purposes. And yes,
I certainly don't need another exchange like our last one
either! Whew!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:40 MST