From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 02:21:19 MDT
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:04:19PM +1000, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 09:42 PM 6/24/01 -0700, Hal wrote:
>
> >I feel we should work
> >toward a new methodology for addressing the genuine difficulties which
> >some people have with aspects of future technology. The language of
> >battle, of conflict, is not the appropriate metaphor for addressing
> >this problem. We should not seek to vanquish our opponents, to defeat
> >them in debate or in politics.
>
> Indeed. This is the main disagreement I had with Greg Burch's excellent
> address at Extro5--it was far too structured by the rhetoric of conflict
> and even battle. This *might* turn out eventually to be literally true, and
> in some instances is already, but I find it a self-defeating choice of
> analysis and semiotic tactics.
Interesting, we discussed the proceedings of E5 at TransVision 2001
yesterday, and this was also one of the main consensus agreements. While
we all seemed to agree with the basic message of Greg´s talk (our
philosophical past, the structure of the opposition and methods of
dealing with it) it was generally felt that phrasing things in battle
metaphors is a bit dangerous (and they are hard to get away from once
you have started). It is a form of struggle (different groups with
differing and incompatible objectives interacting) and some of our
opposition is phrasing it in battle metaphors, but these metaphors might
limit our thinking.
We shouldn´t pick up the gauntlet thrown by Rifkin. We should give him
a wet squid, and then go on to win real victories while he stands there
in puzzlement.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:16 MST