Re: Extropian Principles 3.0: Please comment on new version draft

Damien R. Sullivan (
Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:39:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Sep 10, 8:32pm, Damien Broderick wrote:

> To me, `Dynamic' used as part of a slogan or a key item of terminology,
> outside of physics, is utterly redolant of bogosity and cretin-demographics


Actually, I don't think I can use the Principles at all to describe extropianism to other people. At least not the way I imagine it, of reciting the list and then trying to explain them. I tried it once and I think sounded like a cult member. I'd prefer my "Enlightenment plus Darwin and Turing" rendition. Which might not convey much, but would let me explain in more detail while not having the mental door slammed in my face. Of course, I might end up causing extropianism to not seem like a big deal, but I have the soul of a classicist. If I can show that some hot new idea was actually invented in the 18th century, I will do so with glee.

But I like Critical Optimism somewhat. Yes, 'critical' can hit negative flags. But critical thinking is good, and I think "Critical Optimism" would be weird enough to make people stop and think or stop and ask. It seems like an oxymoron. Especially if they _do_ first flash to the negative sense of 'critical' -- they then move to 'optimism', get confused, and get a reset. If they flash to the positive sense of 'critical' you're in luck anyway.

Disclaimer: the above paragraph has no experimental support.

-xx- GSV Cynical Optimist X-)

"And it is on that word, 'hummy', my dears, that Tonstant Weader Fwowed up.