From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 15:53:28 MST
I vote against. I believe the "issue" is a tempest in a teapot
not worth further belaboring. It made an interesting debate for
a shorter time than we carried on with it (imho of course). But
I see no point in changing the wording due to that inconclusive
debate.
- samantha
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 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