From: Max More (maxmore@primenet.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 1997 - 16:47:50 MST
At 02:26 AM 3/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I regard sweeping claims about the nature of "Extropic art" with bemusement.
> Would anyone speak so broadly about "Extropian writing"?
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "sweeping claims" so it's hard to
address your point. But, yes, you can speak about extropian writing just as
you can talk about Extropic Art. Certainly, as you note, extropian writing
can have several purposes, not just to inform, but to amuse, to refer to
useful resources, and so so. Yet, to clearly be extropian writing it must
embody extropian attitudes. Otherwise "extropian" would be utterly without
content.
Similarly, Extropic Art is art that embodies extropic ideas and values.
It's very clear what some of those are (intelligence augmentation, life
extension, greater ability to define one's self, etc.). There are other
ideas and attitudes that we might argue about, but most terms (except
logical and mathematical terms) include some fuzzy areas.
It still makes sense to discuss questions such as whether to embody
extropic ideas and attitudes it matters only that this was the artist's
intention or whether an artwork succeeds in being extropic only in so far
as it induces such an effect in the viewer/reader/listener/participant.
Regardless of views on this, it seems perfectly clear to me that Extropic
Art *does* admit of definition and understanding. Such a definition need to
go into details, but to avoid some kind of definition is obfuscating and
mystifying -- certainly *not* extropic traits!
Max
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org
http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
President, Extropy Institute, Editor, Extropy
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
(310) 398-0375
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:17 MST