From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 23:16:02 MST
Brett calls for a vote on the change he proposes. Without
expressing any opinion on the propriety of such an act, I
vigorously ABSTAIN with Prejudice.
My grounds: as the proposed wording doesn't change the
meaning, according to me, it doesn't matter.
Lee Corbin
P.S. The votes in the tally so far are, of this writing, two (2) in FAVOR,
and one (1) ABSTENTION with prejudice (whatever that means).
> INTRODUCTION
>
> The Extropian Principles 3.0 "express the values and attitudes
> common to Extropians". (pg 13). They have been structured
> and version numbered to reflect the desirability of their being
> reflected upon and reviewed from time to time by extropians.
>
> The Extropian Principles are copyright to Max More, therefore
> actual changes to the document itself may be best carried out,
> facilitated, or at least consented to by Max.
>
> I offer for your consideration, and discussion, the following
> amendment requests - marked AMENDMENTS below.
>
> PROCEDURE: (Please read in deference to others)
>
> The proposals are numbered for ease of reference and to facilitate
> clarity in discussion. The proposed amendments may be supported
> opposed or ignored. Amendments to these amendments may be
> offered (alternate substitute wording say might be offered).
>
> Other amendments to other parts of the ExI Principles could also
> be offered, however, I request that these be handled separately
> (i.e.. use a different subject header) so that at least temporary closure
> on these particular issues which have already had some discussion
> on the list can be achieved.
>
> Please don't put meta-commentary in posts that are about votes and the
> particular amendments, put it in a side post, so that the particular
> amendments can be considered separately on their merit. If you have
> no interest or preference at all saying nothing will be very concise and
> might make it easier to count votes and for other people to see alternative
> amendments if any.
>
> If more than say a dozen respond, ( if :-) ), it may be better to send
> yes or no votes (on each or all of the amendments) to me offlist and I'll
> collate them and report to the list.
>
> Any other procedural questions could be handled by use of a META
> in the subject line.
>
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
>
> I acknowledge and thank Lee Corbin and Samantha Atkins for their
> discussion relating to these matters to date.
>
>
> AMENDMENT (1) -------------------------
>
> In two places in the Extropian Principles 3.0 reason is said to be
> *favored*.
>
> The second sentence on page 1 states:
>
> (1a)
> "Like humanists, transhumanists *favor* reason, progress,
> and values centred on our well-being rather than on any
> external religious authority"
>
> And, the last sentence on page 2 states:
>
> (1b)
> "7. Rational Thinking -- *Favoring* reason over blind faith and
> questioning over dogma".
>
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1a and 1b
>
> (1a)
>
> That the word *favor* be replaced with the word *affirm*
>
> (1b)
>
> That the word *favoring* be replaced with the word *affirming*
>
> >>OPENING ARGUMENT.
>
> One ought not merely favor reason over belief like one favors
> say vanilla ice cream over peppermint. Such is not an intellectual
> distinction. One ought to "affirm" reason over belief.
>
> I note that the word affirm is used on pg 12 in the first sentence of
> the section on Rational Thinking in exactly this manner.
>
> **AMENDMENT (2)---------------------------
>
> On page 3. Following immediately after the above ref in Amendment 2.
>
> "Remaining open to challenges to our *beliefs*(2a) and practices in
> pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our
> existing *beliefs*(2b) while being open to new ideas".
>
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2A and 2b
>
> (2a)
> "Remaining open to challenges to our *assumptions* and
> practices in pursuit of perpetual improvement.
>
> (2b)
> Welcoming criticism of our existing *views* while being open
> to new ideas."
>
> >>OPENING ARGUMENT
>
> Neither of the proposed alternative words to *beliefs* carry any
> implication that *beliefs* are valid.
>
> If the intended meaning of these sentences can be retained without
> any risk of implicitly endorsing the belief meme the net effect of the
> amendments are beneficial. The Extropian Principles should not
> implicitly affirm belief.
>
> AMENDMENT (3)---------------------------------------
>
> On pg 2.
>
> " This document deliberate does not specify particular *beliefs*,
> technologies, or conclusions. "
>
> PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3.
>
> No change is proposed.
>
> However some opposed to the other related amendments may wish to
> strengthen the belief meme or propose a counter-point amendment.
>
> No restriction on the nature or extent of opposition is implied.
>
> >> OPENING ARGUMENT.
>
> In this context *belief* is not endorsed. In fact it seems to be
> disparaged. It is a good example of opposing of the *belief* meme
> that competes head to head with the *reason* meme.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST