Eric, CampMars@aol.com, writes:
> How about just using the word "fanaticism".... "Environmental fanaticism",
> "Religious fanaticism", "Political fanaticism" that way the point is clear
> that this is not all inclusive to any and all religious or environmental
> activists but those who are know who your talking about by reading the
> agendas.
I don't agree that only fanatics will be opposed to extropian and
transhuman ideas. Sincere, reasonable people may raise various sorts
of objections that we would not agree with, but that does not make
them fanatics.
I am not comfortable with creating what seems to amount to an "enemies
list". (If this is not a fair description, I'd like to hear how
it differs.) Even more, I don't think we should demonize those who
disagree with us by characterizing them as fanatics.
I would like to see us move beyond the politics of opposition, of point
and counterpoint, thesis and antithesis, of winners and losers. I agree
with the earlier message that this was the framework of twentieth century
revolutionary movements.
We don't need a Great Debate in which we seek to defeat our opponents (and
must start by identifying them in order to plot our campaign). This is
the language of warfare, memetic warfare in this case but war nonetheless.
I see the 21st century memetic landscape as being far more diverse and
complex than the mechanistic, rigid view of the past. We don't need to
capture and occupy territory. Rather, we should expand the framework of
ideas, seeking peaceful coexistence with those who have differing views.
Our goal should not be to convert others to our memetic culture, but to
embrace their differences. In diversity there is strength.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:03 MDT