Re: Gardening is Extropian (was) Are you an extropian? Re: Voluntary simpl...

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 12:11:27 MDT

I probably shouldn't go on about this since Max posted, but what the hey..

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > ... If you call yourself a member of a philosophy
> > that has a specific list of principles, and yet you do not agree with
> > them all, then as you say it is a simple tautology that you are
> > not actually a member of that philosophy, and continuing to use the
> > term to describe yourself is either self-deceptive or insulting to
> > others.
> You really should read beyond the first sentence of my reply, and if
> you did, do it again with more effort in understanding. How do we
> know that it's not /you/ who misunderstands or misinterprets the basic
> principles, while I'm the "real" Extropian? We don't until we examine

The argument I am making is a special case where someone openly admits
that they do not agree with one of the principles. I am not judging
anyone, I am making a conclusion based on their own admissions.

> it. How do we know the principles themselves don't contain internal
> inconsistencies theat further discussion will bring to light? Those
> who bring up such issues are doing the real work of thought, and are
> not deceiving themselves or others in any way.

Well this is probably where we are really differing. I am trying to
get across the idea that it doesn't matter at all whether the principles
are "right". They can be completely goofy, such as with religions.
But if you are calling yourself a member of that philosophy then you
are implying that you agree with the principles.

What it seems to come down to is: do you think extropianism is what
is defined by Max with his principles, or do you think what really
matters is each person's own definition?

> Don't mistake me for an "inclusionist" who thinks philosophies should
> be watered down to gain following--I'm just the opposite. I think
> philosophies should be clarified and their implications examined in
> detail; if other philosophies break from them, that's good too. I do
> think there are those who may deceptively label themselves with a
> philosophy they don't actually hold, but I do not for a moment think
> that it is easy to determine which those are, apart from those who
> honestly believe they do espouse the philosophy though they may have
> disagreements about details with others. I am not so juvenile to
> think simple black-and-white lines can be drawn easily.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:01 MDT