Re: >H Dynamic Individual Freedom

Natasha V. More (
Sun, 1 Sep 1996 20:22:16 -0700 (MST)

At 10:46 PM 9/1/96 +0100, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:

>In message <>, Natasha V. More writes:
>> I stated months ago that I thought UIF was, perhaps, sloopy
>> in its authorship. It's original purpose, so to speak, was mutated. Thus,
>> my intent was to drop UIF and develop another way of viewing my individual
>> freedoms.
>Well, "sloppy in its authorship" is a bit hard.

I don't see why, I was referring to myself and that is how I see it.

>Admittedly, you coined
>the phrase but didn't define the concept, but that isn't necessarily

I did develop its concept as I saw it at the time. You just didn't agree
with it. You asked me for a definition, while I stated that I did see how
it could be defined in that I was beginning to doubt its significance or
purpose, i.e., superfluous adjective.

> You left it to the rest of us on the >H list to define it, and
>that was surely good for the subject matter and for the community.

Not define it completely, but to explore it.

> Our
>work didn't take the path you expected, it took the path that those that
>worked on it determined, which can't be a surprise to anyone.

Not exactly. It took several paths, as so expressed by the number of people
who participated in voicing views. Some I agreed with, others I did not.

>If you want an ideology that meets your own requirements exactly, I'm
>afraid you're going to have to develop it yourself, Natasha! (:-)

Gee thanks Rich! But, no, I don't have to develop an new ideology, I am
already a Transhuman Extropian. And, I'm quite happy with that now. I can,
however, develop _myself_ and this action brings me great joy. I'm
automorphing my individual freedom.



Natasha Vita More
(f/k/a Nancie Clark)
"The best defense is an artful offense."
Automorph Art "One thing is needed - 'to give style' to one's character -
a great and rare art!" Nietzsche