From: Max More (maxmore@globalpac.com)
Date: Tue Oct 20 1998 - 14:16:17 MDT
At 10:38 AM 10/20/98 -0700, Robin wrote:
>Kathryn Aegis writes:
>>[...]If we set up a
>>two-part expanded definition paralleling this in the FAQ, it would go a long
>>way towards resolving the stupid endless argument between the technologists
>>and philosophers that has plagued us since the beginning. I've been
>>thinking in dictionary terms lately, because the editors of the OED are in
>>fact considering adding these two terms to the OED, and they are tending
>>towards this sort of structure in a definition as well.
>
>This OED proposal looks fine by me, as I do see two distinct
>uses of the term, one positive and one normative. Now what
>are they thinking of using to define "transhuman"?
I agree that a dictionary definition of "transhumanism" can include more
than one sense of the term. That's perfectly normal. I'm not sure right now
exactly what definition I gave the OED editor when I spoke to her, but it's
probably the original one that I came up with. I think I've also slightly
improved the definition of "extropy" since then, so that should also go to
the editor.
I wouldn't characterize the discussions we've had about definition as
"stupid endless arguments". I would rather characterize them as "focused,
productive discussions aimed at clarifying vital terms".
Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org (soon also: <max@maxmore.com>)
http://www.maxmore.com
Consulting services on the impact of advanced technologies
President, Extropy Institute:
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:40 MST