From: Michael Butler (mbutler@ocv1.ocv.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 1997 - 11:36:48 MST
>Well, that sure attracted comment! Not so much by so many people, as by
>so many (2) Extropian heavyweights. Which in itself is cause for
>comment; why did only the Extropian elite notice this statement? But
>forget that.
Well, gee, I guess I'd better comment. Especially if I can get credit
by association. :)
As I hope my recent posts will support, I'm concentrating on the
social/societal issues facing those who would lead very different
lives facilitated by anticipated technologies which free us from old
limitations. Part of that is addressing _what it means to be human_
rather than assuming I know what to leave out.
Does that make me a capital-E Extropian? or a capital-T
Transhuman? Or just a propeller-head with a bent for moral
philosophy? Should I care, as long as I'm doing my best?
>The point being, oh James Rogers, oh Max More, that you two are, as I
>said, the few Extropians who think about IA.
See above. I'd rather be doing the thinking and exploring I'm doing
than earn your capital-E rating. :) :) And how does two people
posting equate to only two people thinking about it? I think I see an
questionable chain of reasoning here...
And then JR said:
1)
>This list is incomplete if it is to include the full scope of Extropian
>thought. What about ethics and morality? art? philosophy? psychology? memetics?
<snip>
2)
>There is something inherently dangerous in ranking the "tenets of
extropianism".
1) Yep, what about 'em? I'll be posting more (po)s soon, but so far
my attempts to provoke discussion haven't seemed to elicit any
responses. Maybe they got lost in the list flux.
2) Yep. My definition of an ism:
ism, -ism n A body of evidence with a toe tag.
MMB, at but not for OCC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:00 MST