> In a message dated 6/7/2000 9:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> But I did have a point. Separating out "Real" Extropians is saying others are
> false. Which is not really the correct outlook. We are commited to this in
> different levels and among us there are many differing views about Max's
> writings, singularity and transhumanism.
Agreed that there definitely different views and commitment levels. However
as you can see below I think we can pretty easily say in many cases
that someone is NOT an extropian. Now that doesn't mean that they shouldn't
lurk and post here, or hang out, or whatever. And it definitely doesn't
mean that they don't have some wonderful extropian qualities. But I
think the ability to call oneself an extropian should be reserved for those
individuals that truly have thought out and committed to the requirements
and consequences of living with the principles.
> His words are not, nor ever were intended to be doctrine, as far as I know.
Right, although as he says they define a specific "brand" of transhumanism.
> Nor is he propunding a rigid adherance to these principles, at least not
> anywhere I can find in his literature.
> In fact... correct me if i am wrong... I think I remember the principles
> being slightly maleable themselves, and undergoing a revision (some while
I think they are always under revision, yes. But they more or less define
at any point in time what you agree with if you are seriously calling
yourself an extropian. In my opinion.
> My knowledge of him is that his is an extremely flexible and fluid mind,
> which eschews dogma and creed.
> However, if you are right, and we must adhere to these principles, I guess I
> am not a REAL extropian, because I don't adhere well to pre-set ideologies. I
> am not stuck to anything. I change. I am not glued to this. I am many things,
There are no "rules" that you can absolutely agree are correct, and live by?
> one of them a futurist and an optimist. I call myself Extropian, and find
> great inspiration in it's meaning, and yet I am not using the whole thing,
> hook line and sinker. Yet it seems you would not allow me this title.
In skateboarder jargon I think you would be a poseur. :-)
> To me, Bonnie is just fine as she is, and it isn't up to you to correct her,
> unless she asks you to. (And now she has (!) and she earned big bonus points
> of respect from me for doing so, what a lady! What a sweetheart.)
> I took your post to Bonnie offensively, because I really DON'T like people to
> tell me, or anyone else, "go back, read the principles - you're not doing
> this right" - (or) you're not a real extropian unless you__________(Fill in
> the blank).
> I have a hard time swallowing that kind of thing. I have heard it again and
> I am what I am, I think for myself, and if I choose to call myself an
> Extropian, even though I may totally disagree with certain aspects, then so
> be it.
Well that's the real catch isn't it? I just don't see how you can logically
say that simultaneously you disagree with certain parts of a philosophy
yet still call yourself a member of it? Is that like calling yourself a
catholic and then having an abortion when it suits you?
In my opinion if we don't reserve the noun Extropian for those who are
full fledged practitioners of the philosophy, then isn't that a bit of
an insult to those people?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:51 MDT