Re: Can we develop a better definition of extropy?

Eric Watt Forste (
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:26:15 -0800

Nadia wrote:
>Was it supposed to be re (or better)defined by all of us, on an email forum?

That is the way the evolution of language generally works, in the long

>Wouldnt it have been better protocol to arrange a meeting with Max and
>discuss it, or some other place, and then work with the Institute in a
>positive way?

Doesn't the Institute run this list? Isn't engaging in discussion of
extropian topics on a list sponsored by the Institute "working with the
Institute in a positive way"? I do not understand why discussions of the
usage of words need to be conducted in private.

>Either way,IMHO obviously Extropy (as well as transhumanism) is a new
>philosophy and far from being RE-definable is still an ongoing exploration of
> still to be refined and exciting ideas.

I don't really think that anyone could call a proposed description
of extropy as "the quality of creative order characteristic of
living systems" a "redefinition". It just seems to me to be a good
alternative way of getting across the same sorts of ideas we have
been talking about all along. Extropy is a big word, and big words
cannot be summed up by single definitions that stand for all time.
I also am having a hard time thinking of any specific reasons why
anyone would want to object to describing extropy as the quality
of creative order characteristic of living systems. Is there
something left out of this phrase? Or something implied that we
don't really mean? I think everyone on this list realizes that
human technology, and not only biological systems, is already
beginning to display (in its own right) the quality of creative
order characteristic of living systems.

Eric Watt Forste ++ ++