From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 12:21:09 MDT
At 03:53 PM 5/27/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>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.
I'm trying to defend my writing time, so just a very short response on this
for now: First, I -- not "people" -- wrote the Extropian Principles.
Second, no they are not intended to simply describe what some people
thought at a particular time.
In the last version, I wrote that the Principles are a "codification". I
was using this term according to the definition of "codify" as "To arrange
or systematize". The Principles have never been meant merely as a
description. Many of us do hold these values and attitudes in common. I
think that is because logically and empirically, careful thinking shows
that they cohere very well.
They are not absolutes. That's why the Principles are open to revision, if
a more coherent, complete, or accurate codification becomes apparent and
survives critical analysis.
Because of extremely difficult to resolve arguments over the objectivity of
values, I have *not* presented the Principles as universal values for
everyone. I *do* believe that these principles *work* for everyone, but I
am not certain that everyone is rationally compelled to accept any
particular basic values. I leave that as an open question. Even for many
who see values as ultimately subjective (why live rather than not...) I
know that the Principles make good sense as a codification -- so long as
those persons ultimately value life.
So, from what I have read (far from all the posts), Harvey is accurate to
deny that the Extropian Principles are merely summaries of what some people
believe at a certain point in time. On the other hand, I do not present
them as universally compelling values. I leave that option open -- it's
just not part of the Principles themselves. That question is a metaethical
question, whereas you can think of the Extropian Principles as an ethical
(and existential) framework.
This was longer than I intended, though still inadequate to respond to all
points.
Onward!
Max
P.S. It's good to see some discussion of the Principles instead of long
discussions about baby killing and other topics that seem out of place here
and better suited to other forums.
_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST