From: KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 07:53:46 MDT
It appears as if Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
|
|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.
As I recall, people wrote the ``Principles'' to summarize what people thought
about various matters at the time of the write-ups.
Somehow, when I read what people write about them today, it seems to me that
some people now view them more as a some kind of holy Scriptures, and that
the ``Principles'' no longer form a snap-shot of what people have thought
(i.e., a debatable view), but instead form a corpus of undebatable Truth,
which one must not discuss, at risk of eternal damnation.
My hypothesis: Members start to view Extropianism as a _community_.
In communities, people tend to view non-conformism as a
threat, instead of viewing it as a spice. The scriptures
will specify the ``correct'' behaviours and beliefs, etc.
*I* believe that one should allow the list members to discuss even the semi-
holy ``Principles'' if there exists no absolute agreement on them, and to me,
PCR seems a rather good vehicle for that discussion.
Personally, I would like to see the various versions of the ``Principles''
on-line, at least as historical background documents.
|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.
I believe the problem lies in the first sentence quoted.
Rewritten, it states that _you_ believe that from the statemnet
X: ``Person A criticizes the use of a document''
follows that
Y: ``Person A rejects the document used''
. But statement Y does NOT ncessarily follow from statement X.
As to what ``Principles'' people should or should not use, I leave to their
own discretion, as I do not assume that there can only exist only *one* tool.
That may form an Extropian heresy, but Extropianism forms just another tool,
and if it no longer
Personally, I found some of the older version (the number escapes me, since
the older ones have been eliminated from on-line storage) more to the point.
I simply find the later ones somewhat too verbose for my taste.
To me, the older sounded more optimistic, more ``call to arms'' as it were,
while the later ones sound less optimistic, and more bureaucratic.
YMMV.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST