Re: >H Re: Dynamic Individual Freedom
Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:37:09 +0100
At 21:00 29/08/96 -0400, Ian Goddard wrote:
>Transhuman Mailing List
>
> At 02:11 PM 8/28/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>
> > I, too, cannot see huge differences between UIF and DIF,
>
>IAN: The problem I see with "unlimited freedom" is that private
>property is an integral feature of liberty and freedom. Private
>property is defined by limits. If there are no limits to what I
>can do -- that is, if I have unlimited freedom of action -- then
>it follows that I can tread all over the property claims, i.e.,
>the defined limits, of others.
>
>If there is no right to private property I cannot even own my body.
>If I cannot own my body, I cannot have freedom. Therefore unlimited
>freedom for all localized beings is a contradiction. However, in a
>nonlocal relm 'unlimited freedom' does have meaning. For example,
>since identity is nonlocal, identity is unlimited and free,
>where 'free' implies unbounded.
Absolutely: I think I mentioned elsewhere in my post that I interpret
'unlimited' as a 'self-limited', but see it as very open to misinterpretation.
> >> Rich Artym phrases this thus:
> >>
> >> For me it [ dynamic ] conjures up:
> >> Dynamic - growth, pro-active, ever changing, transformation
> >> Individual - independent thought and action, importance of self
> >> Freedom - more options, (life) expansion, individual rights
>
>
>IAN: Good points. And 'dynamic' does not imply treading over other's space.
They are good points, but they were made by Peter Voss, not Rich Artym.
Sarah>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------