From: Geoff Smith (geoffs@interchange.ubc.ca)
Date: Thu Sep 10 1998 - 17:48:26 MDT
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Max More wrote:
> At 04:41 PM 9/4/98 -0700, you(Geoff Smith) wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'll second that. I especially find the earlier version of the paper on
> >"Dynamic Optimism" to be far superior to the present one.
>
> I think it depends on what you want out of it. The new version of the
> Dynamic Optimism paper I wrote for a more practical approach.
I think this may have been my(unjustified) problem with it-- it sounded
too much like a pop-psych book. I think I prefer a more philisophical
writing style, but this is most likely not representative of your average
Joe or Jane.
> The original
> version was less practical and more purely theoretical. I'll try to
> remember to see that *both* versions are available on the web site.
Maybe this could be a general policy? Putting up the progression of all
the papers you write (especially the principles!) would be a good way of
demonstrating the progression and dynamism of extropic thought. I think
it would be also good lesson in "learning from your mistakes" and in the
the ways a memetic system must evolve to survive in rapidly changing
times.
A quick comment about the nomenclature of "Dynamic Optimism" -- although
there a quite a few people on this list who think the name does not stress
rational/critical thought, I have never encountered this objection outside
of the extropian population. I think these objections are simply an
overcompensation for the rare public perception of Extropy as a cult. I
see nothing wrong with the name; on the contrary, I am particularly fond
of the word "dynamic" and I think you are explicit enough about critical
thought in your paper about PCR.
Geoff.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:34 MST