From: Natasha V. More(f/k/a/Nancie Clark) (flexeon@primenet.com)
Date: Wed Dec 18 1996 - 22:23:05 MST
At 03:51 PM 12/18/96 -0500, T0Morrow@aol.com wrote:
>I think that this definition would muddy rather
>than clarify. For one thing, it covers far more territory than "extropy"
>proper. I daresay that the proposed definition sounds nearly coextensive
>with organic chem! At any rate, it fails to focus on the things that really
>interest Extropians: intelligence technologies, self-transformation,
>boundless expansion, etc.
I agree with you Tom. I like the definition of extropy as in _Extropy_ 17,
by Max. As Tom notes, it is very specific and immediately makes clear some
of our basic goals. On hearing Max's definition, people's puzzlement starts
to evaporate right away inviting further explanation.
Natasha Vita More
[f/k/a Nancie Clark]
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Transhumanist Universe Art Web site
* * * * * * * * * *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:54 MST