> ... 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
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.
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.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:01 MDT