In a message dated 10/11/99 11:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rowen@technologist.com writes:
> Sayke@aol.com wrote:
>
> > what? and waste all that valuable protein? ;)
> >
> > > ................................................................. it
is
> > > in his best interests to avoid the APPEARANCE of selfishness and that
> > > displaying the respect you describe is the easiest way to induce the
> > > cooperation of others.
> >
> > ... isnt this what we do any time we sit back, smile, and nod? "normal"
> > people regularly put on layers and layers of emotional facades...
>
> Sayke, since you have a lively sense of humor, I'm going to assume that
> some of your statements are ironical and provocative.
well, much grass to ya and all, but please, be careful about what you assume is *just* me and my attempts to be as cool as emlyn. the protein remark, above, while an attempted joke ("yes, a joke. hahahahahahahaha" -- data), was also an attempt to illustrate that your hypothetical solipsist is a shortsighted feeb (please note that i am not calling you shortsighted or a feeb, or any combination of the two). you seem to assume that solipsists necessarily have no ability to understand or take into account the long-term consequences of their actions. i dont follow ya there.
> The essential motive
> for my posts is a desire to engage in "networked cognition" for the
analysis
> of difficult social issues. "Individualism Reconsidered" by David Reismann
some
> years ago was an early effort to discover whether "self-determination" in
> the context of a densely interdependent social matrix, i.e. contemporary
> technological society, had any real meaning.
interisting. i think i can understand, in that while my goals include being completly self-sufficient, as of right now, i buy food from stores. so? thats just another thing that being a self-aware++ upload could fix. i fail to see how the current situation (or any situations where temporary dependence on others is necessary for survival) would modify the long term goals...
> So think about this: is "Extropian Commune" an oxymoron?
i dont know. it seems to me that 'extropian' as an adjective as lost some of its meaning lately, and im not sure what, if anything (or if anything should), differentiate/s extropians from transhumanists in general. so, ive got den otter's transtopian principles in my current enlightenment theme background... while not intending to disparage the extropian principles (i still dig em, but...), i really think that they dont take a very explicit stance on some important issues. the transtopian principles do. alright, so maybe im part of the transhumanst extremists; or exptropian hardliners; or whatever... o well; so what? words dont refer to reality, etc... </rant>
> For example, in the event of massively disruptive social sabotage by any
> current terrorist organization (and I am in a position to know that there
is
> no workable firewall in place, that we are totally vulnerable to e.g.
Anthrax
> agents and small plutonium-based ordinance), could Extropians organize
> small communes that required intense cooperation with an emphasis on
> group rather than self actualization? Is there any alternative here to
> a paramilitary model requiring the imposition of discipline when necessary?
i think that, given the generally innovative and adaptable nature of those who would describe themselves as (im workin on this e-prime thing, alright!) extropians, ya could nail a board with the non-coercion principle painted on it to "our" cave wall and the inhabitants would do pretty good by it.
and i think that small groups can function very very well when the emphasis is on group actualization as a means to individual actualization. at least, i think i function best that way.
sayke, v2.3.05