On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Max More wrote:
> At 04:41 PM 9/4/98 -0700, you(Geoff Smith) wrote:
> >I'll second that. I especially find the earlier version of the paper on
> >"Dynamic Optimism" to be far superior to the present one.
> I think it depends on what you want out of it. The new version of the
> Dynamic Optimism paper I wrote for a more practical approach.
I think this may have been my(unjustified) problem with it-- it sounded too much like a pop-psych book. I think I prefer a more philisophical writing style, but this is most likely not representative of your average Joe or Jane.
> The original
> version was less practical and more purely theoretical. I'll try to
> remember to see that *both* versions are available on the web site.
Maybe this could be a general policy? Putting up the progression of all the papers you write (especially the principles!) would be a good way of demonstrating the progression and dynamism of extropic thought. I think it would be also good lesson in "learning from your mistakes" and in the the ways a memetic system must evolve to survive in rapidly changing times.
A quick comment about the nomenclature of "Dynamic Optimism" -- although there a quite a few people on this list who think the name does not stress rational/critical thought, I have never encountered this objection outside of the extropian population. I think these objections are simply an overcompensation for the rare public perception of Extropy as a cult. I see nothing wrong with the name; on the contrary, I am particularly fond of the word "dynamic" and I think you are explicit enough about critical thought in your paper about PCR.