From: Sayke@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 11 1999 - 20:12:40 MDT
In a message dated 10/11/99 11:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rowen@technologist.com writes:
> Sayke@aol.com wrote:
>
> > what? and waste all that valuable protein? ;)
> >
> > > ................................................................. it
is
> > > in his best interests to avoid the APPEARANCE of selfishness and that
> > > displaying the respect you describe is the easiest way to induce the
> > > cooperation of others.
> >
> > ... isnt this what we do any time we sit back, smile, and nod? "normal"
> > people regularly put on layers and layers of emotional facades...
>
> Sayke, since you have a lively sense of humor, I'm going to assume that
> some of your statements are ironical and provocative.
well, much grass to ya and all, but please, be careful about what you
assume is *just* me and my attempts to be as cool as emlyn. the protein
remark, above, while an attempted joke ("yes, a joke. hahahahahahahaha" --
data), was also an attempt to illustrate that your hypothetical solipsist is
a shortsighted feeb (please note that i am not calling you shortsighted or a
feeb, or any combination of the two). you seem to assume that solipsists
necessarily have no ability to understand or take into account the long-term
consequences of their actions. i dont follow ya there.
> The essential motive
> for my posts is a desire to engage in "networked cognition" for the
analysis
> of difficult social issues. "Individualism Reconsidered" by David Reismann
some
> years ago was an early effort to discover whether "self-determination" in
> the context of a densely interdependent social matrix, i.e. contemporary
> technological society, had any real meaning.
interisting. i think i can understand, in that while my goals include
being completly self-sufficient, as of right now, i buy food from stores. so?
thats just another thing that being a self-aware++ upload could fix. i fail
to see how the current situation (or any situations where temporary
dependence on others is necessary for survival) would modify the long term
goals...
> So think about this: is "Extropian Commune" an oxymoron?
i dont know. it seems to me that 'extropian' as an adjective as lost some
of its meaning lately, and im not sure what, if anything (or if anything
should), differentiate/s extropians from transhumanists in general. so, ive
got den otter's transtopian principles in my current enlightenment theme
background... while not intending to disparage the extropian principles (i
still dig em, but...), i really think that they dont take a very explicit
stance on some important issues. the transtopian principles do. alright, so
maybe im part of the transhumanst extremists; or exptropian hardliners; or
whatever... o well; so what? words dont refer to reality, etc... </rant>
> For example, in the event of massively disruptive social sabotage by any
> current terrorist organization (and I am in a position to know that there
is
> no workable firewall in place, that we are totally vulnerable to e.g.
Anthrax
> agents and small plutonium-based ordinance), could Extropians organize
> small communes that required intense cooperation with an emphasis on
> group rather than self actualization? Is there any alternative here to
> a paramilitary model requiring the imposition of discipline when necessary?
i think that, given the generally innovative and adaptable nature of
those who would describe themselves as (im workin on this e-prime thing,
alright!) extropians, ya could nail a board with the non-coercion principle
painted on it to "our" cave wall and the inhabitants would do pretty good by
it.
and i think that small groups can function very very well when the
emphasis is on group actualization as a means to individual actualization. at
least, i think i function best that way.
sayke, v2.3.05
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:29 MST