} >} And I wouldn't want to. What I meant was, if "extropy" means anything to
} >} me at all, it's the idea of actively pushing for a better future--which
} >} requires getting over apologizing for one's particular values--rather than
}
} phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu (Twirlip of Greymist) replied:
} >Which requires defining what your idea of a better future *is*.
}
} Not sure what you mean. One meaning of "apology" is explanation. One
} useful things. But in this thread they actually weren't to the point.
"Extropy is the idea of actively pushing for a better future." You said
it; presumably you wished to communicate something with it. By itself,
it communicates very little, because 'better' means "higher up in some
scale of value". Rather vague if the scale and values are undefined.
This isn't a requirement you can "get over"; it is imposed by your
desire to communicate to someone else. And the problem isn't their lack
of understanding; it's what you haven't said.
Now, given this list, and the use of the word "extropy", I probably know
what you meant. But really, any meaning there is held in the context of
the list and the word 'extropy' itself; the rest of the sentence served
no function.
} X: Some extropians seem to want to be non-human rather than trans-human.
} Y: Trans-human is necessarily non-human to some extent, and you're being
} intolerant.
} Me: No, by "non-human," X meant lacking important essential human stuff.
} That's valuing, not intolerance. To me, extropy means improvement.
} Z: You can't call someone non-extropian because they don't share your
} values.
} Me: I only meant that not-valuing, going along with whatever happens, is
} not what extropian means to *me*.
}
} So the original point was whether it's okay (and clear) to use "non-human"
} as a derogatory term, without defining what one means exactly. I think
} it is, but today (walking down the hall at work) I realized I've seen it
*shrug* It is okay for you. Some people will consider shedding some
parts of humanity to _be_ an improvement. So by your own definition,
those non-human aspirants are as extropian as you. I guess I wouldn't
have said what Y said above.
I have nothing against values, or expressing values. I seem to get to
take Rich's place as vocal subjectivist. But expressing a difference in
values doesn't have to be derogatory -- shouldn't be, unless you're
actively trying to control someone else's values.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"Food is much cheaper in Hong Kong than in Japan--
primarily because Hong Kong has almost no farmers."
-- World Bank report, on the political clout of farmers