From: Natasha V. More(f/k/a/Nancie Clark) (flexeon@primenet.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 1996 - 09:42:12 MDT
At 02:11 PM 8/28/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>I wrote:
>
>>> I think 'dynamic individual freedom' sums up my approach to the subject: I
>>> wish to define my own freedoms to suit my own worldview and have the
>>> flexibility to manipulate and alter those freedoms as that worldview >>>
changes.
>
(snip)
>I, too, cannot see huge differences between UIF and DIF, except that the
>former emphasises the 'other' whereas the latter emphasises the 'self'. The
>discussions I have had on this list which concern UIF have tended to focus
>on external coercion, to look how one is treated by the rest of the
>universe, rather than look at one's own ability to interact with that
>universe in a self-deterministic way. It's a very subtle, and perhaps purely
>semantic disctinction, but a very important one.
>
>For me, transhumanism (and, hence, Extropianism) is about both the
>realization of potential and, inspirationally, the transcending of that
>initial potential: in essence, being all that one can be and more (no pun
>intended). And DIF is a clear expression of that, more so that UIF, because
>of DIF's intrinsic references to self-determinism, interaction and flexibility.
The subtle distinction that you refer to is an important one. I don't know
how UIF was approached by others in this regard, but for me this has been a
chief concern. I stated months ago that I thought UIF was, perhaps, sloopy
in its authorship. It's original purpose, so to speak, was mutated. Thus,
my intent was to drop UIF and develop another way of viewing my individual
freedoms.
Rich added much to the phrase, carefully developing his view of its purpose,
and Peter and Greg also did much work on it. To my knowledge there was much
disagreement regarding its objectivity and/or subjectivity. This was a
problem for me, thus my continued search for a phrase that I could identify
with because I found myself somewhere between their views - but leaning more
towards Peter and Greg's summation.
>>Natasha More:
>>I'd rather start fresh and be sure from the beginning that
>>when I speak of my unlimited freedoms...
>
>I don't believe one can talk of unlimited freedoms, only self-limited
>freedoms, and DIF incorporates that idea of flexible self-limitation.
This could be one of the underlying ideas to explore. At first glance it
makes sense.
>Natasha More:
>>I seek a phrase that sees freedom as more objective...
>
>Any objective definition of freedom (by which I mean one upon which all can
>agree) must allow for the subjective realization of that freedom: that is,
>it must express freedom as a concept of sufficient flexibility to assimilate
>and implement the personal desires of all its proponents, as individuals.
>The 'dynamism' of DIF allows for this, in my opinion: it encompasses the
>flexibility of self-determination and self-realization required for a
>generally acceptable definition of freedom.
"More" objective - not totaly objective. Now, this begins to get to a root.
While Rich would like UIF to be 100% subjective, Peter sees it differently.
I am not a subjectivist, so for me it cannot be 100% subjective. Again,
this was not _the_ issue when the UIF phrase came into existence, but later
as many people started exploring the concept. I lost interest with UIF
because of this.
>>by concentrating on the dynamism,
>>we may be able to avoid the misinterpretations of "unlimited" that those
>>not too well acquainted with UIF have occasionally made.
I thought the misinterpretations were with people who had very carefully
debated the issue.
>>Richard Artym:
>>Furthermore, and
>>this is a pearl beyond price, by pointing out the DYNAMISM of this freedom,
>>it becomes inescapable that limits to individual freedom cannot be set in
>>a priori manner through jurisdictional restraint.
>
>In a way yes. Although I think it would be more accurate to say that by
>pointing out the dynamism of this freedom it becomes inescapable that limits
>to individual freedom can be set through jurisdictional restraint only for
>those individuals who choose to respect that jurisdictional restraint. And
>further, the dynamism of those individuals means they remain free to change
>their minds and cease to respect the restraint. Perhaps this is another
>subtle difference from UIF: DIF doesn't place the same opprobrium on those
>who choose to allow others to restrict their freedom, because the dynamism
>overtly recognizes that that acceptance is transient, and hence DIF is never
>abbrogated.
Ok.
>I hope the above discussion gives some idea of my reason for selecting DIF
>as my 'chosen freedom '. I'd be extremenly interested to hear other views on
>this interpretation.
Good work. Now, I'll have to think about my 'chosen freedom' some more and
see what I can come up with.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:43 MST