Dan: Thanks for your responses to Elaine's rather snide comments on the
Principles. You clearly explained the reasons for some of the changes.
Mike: None of the changes have anything to do with being PC. Both Curt and
Dan explained the change from "Dynamic Optimism" to "Practical Optimism".
The stress is on actually *doing* rather than hoping and wishing.
As for "Perpetual Progress" -- I think you're off-base to say this is the
*opposite* of "Boundless Expansion". If you're determined to interpret it
that way, in contradiction to the actual text, then I can't stop you. BE
sounded to many people like growth for growth's sake--a "pave over the
universe" image. PP more clearly focuses on *improvement*. If you have a
better name for the principle, fire away, but I'm not choosing or rejecting
principles to be PC. I consider such a suggestion quite annoying. It
contradicts my entire life.
I'm always glad to see productive discussion of the Principles, since I'm
never satisfied with them. I too miss the easiness of the five principles
of version 2.5 and the smart acronym, but overall think 3.0 is better.
However, version 4.0 will somehow simultaneously encapsulate the ideas more
briefly while laying them out more extensively and clearly. Maybe the only
way to do this is a multi-level approach, with a short form, then an
extended form with derivative principles. One challenge is that I see the
Principles as arising from a network of interconnected ideas, not as a
hierarchy derived from some ultimate value. I see the principles as more
like attractors than axioms.
firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com
President, Extropy Institute. www.extropy.org
Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Consulting: www.manyworlds.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT