From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 24 2002 - 13:56:57 MDT
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 05:41 am, KPJ wrote:
> It appears as if Lee Corbin <lcorbin@uui.com> wrote:
> |
> |Those who tell someone "that's not in accord with the Principles!" or
> |ask "where do you find justification for *that* in the Principles?" may
> |not realize it, but they are acting to establish a Party Line, and
> acting
> |towards institutionalizing belief. They've got the cart before the
> horse:
> |the extropian principles only *summarize* what some very clear thinking
> |and articulate extropians have thought, and they are of course always
> |subject to criticism or even outright denial. The Extropian principles
> |should derive from the ideas and beliefs of people, not the other way
> |around.
>
> You have summarized my point of view perfectly. Thank you.
I don't know what Principles you guys are talking about. I keep trying
to use the scientific method, the rules of logic, PCR and rational
thought to evaluate new ideas for inconsistencies and internal flaws.
You seem to reject these basic tools and call them politically correct
dogma. What should we be using if not these tools? I keep getting a
rejection of the Extropian Principles and related tools, but I am really
fuzzy on what exactly you think should replace them.
Could you be more specific:
- Which Extropian Principles are not useful as tools?
- Which Extropian Principles merely enforce politically correct
party-line dogma?
- Which Extropian Principles should be rejected and not followed?
- What new Principles would you propose that actually would be a useful
tool?
- What new Principles would make better guidelines for the future?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:20 MST