Re: extrosatva

Geoff Smith (
Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:16:22 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Rick Knight wrote:

> Rick Knight wrote:
> My largest incongruity with the classic Extropian viewpoint (as
> expressed on this digest) is a seeming lack of humanity and
> connectedness.
> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I don't think "incongruity" works here either. It's at best a
> misperception, and at worst a malicious slander. I don't think
> anyone who has ever personally been with a group of Extropians
> and gotten to know them would call us anything but compassionate.
> <waxes extropian and then concludes>
> ...perhaps this episode will help us work on our public image a bit.
> Rick Knight continues:
> Hopefully, I have not snipped out of context here in getting to the
> point. My initial quote above seems to be resurfacing in new posts,
> if only for the purpose of tweakin the vocabulary <G>. However, it
> was not my intention to be malicious. And as word choices, I had
> hoped to disarm that interpretation by use of the word "seeming".
> I consider extropians very intelligent and gifted people. It is my
> perception that there are more of what I would classify "engineering"
> mentalities than there are say..."liberal arts" mentalities.

hmmm... this seems awfully simplistic, to the point of being entirely
useless. How do you differentiate the two? By educational background?

Since Engineering is a practical subset of Science, and Science is a
subset of Philosophy, and Philosophy is an Art, I have a really hard time
making any distinction between your two "mentalities" whatsoever.

The creativity involved in forming a hypothesis is an art in itself.

So maybe what I'm saying is that by being a scientist, your are by default
an artist. Does it work the other way around? Maybe not. You tell me.
You are the "liberal artist."

I think the "artist vs. scientist" meme should be eliminated here and now.
It's way too binary for my brain.

> Of
> course, my speaking emerges from the latter category as anyone who's
> read anything I've posted here can readily interpret.
> I know each group can't survive (well) without the other. We are
> polarized but dependent on one another. A yin/yang, right-brain,
> left-brain, positive/negative, zero/one opposites attract type of
> thing. When the artsy-fartsy types (like moi) get too out there, I
> often NEED someone to say "Earth to Rick". When the calculating,
> empirical types reach their version of critical mass, they too need
> some reconnection from "the other side".

Empricism and artistic creativity are two entirely compatible
philosophies, even in the same person! I'm sure you can tell yourself
"Earth to Rick", instead of relying on someone else. Inversely, I think I
can draw some pretty pictures without your help ;)

> This is staring to sound like Rodney King asking why we can't get
> along. I think we do merge and interpolate well and the occasional
> "disturbance in the force" here in this digest is of no cause for
> alarm to me and hopefully to no one else.

I think you are making a distinction that is not really there.

> Humanity and compassion are not simply defined when you have so many
> "subjective realities" to factor in <G>. This digest is an
> EXTRO-ordinary melting pot of ideas and perspectives. I say it's
> great. I've learned much and hopefully contributed much. I'd like to
> make a living doing this and am paving the way for me to do so.

Me, too! Isn't it exciting?