On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 02:11:27PM -0400, Brian Atkins wrote:
>
> 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?
Since Max's definition seems to set forth quite clearly that the
Principles are not intended to be final, nor are they intended to be
rules (and furthermore, they are directly opposed to arbitrary rules and
dogma), these two answers are not currently different.
However, whether the Principles document (bearing in mind future
versions) should be considered the definition (i.e, that he and ExI hold
exclusive rights to the meaning of the word) remains a question to be
answered.
I am reminded here of the long argument over use of the word "hacker". I
know for sure that if I were to bring that up here and defend my side of
it, I would be told that usage has changed, there is nothing one can do,
shit happens, get over it, by at least two of you.
Consider this parallel carefully when discussing use of 'extropy' and
its derivatives. The same *will* happen, I assure you.
And if you're not familiar with that particular debate, 'communist' will
do just as well.
Martin
-- -----[ Martin J. Ling ]-----[ http://www.nodezero.org.uk ]-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:04 MDT