From: Devon White (devon@thegreatwork.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 09:22:09 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Damien Sullivan wrote,
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:48:35PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, yes, of course. But these are entirely separate meanings
> > > and usages of the words. To try to link the concepts makes
> >
> > IME the concepts are not so much linked as confused every day.
>
> It used to be a standard Extropian belief that the left-right spectrum was
> totally inadequate to properly describe modern or transhuman politics. I
> find it regressive that we are falling more and more into these old-style
> political divisions on this list. We used to be in more agreement on some
> issues and have more diversity in others. Nowadays, it seems like were
are
> stereotyping into two opposing camps and straying further and further from
> the topics of the future.
Though i was not part of the list when "It used to be a standard Extropian
belief that the left-right spectrum was totally inadequate to properly
describe
modern or transhuman politics." i do fully agree. Partisan thinking seems
like an outdated tool when it comes to transhuman ideas and issues.
I think non-Euclidean politics captures the essence of the changing world
much
better and helps in clear and accurate thought.
It's too hard to to intelligently talk about issues if we are trying to lump
people or their
ideas into one of two frameworks of thought. Especially when, as we have
seen with the definitions
thread, people can't even agree on what each framework "means".
Wouldn't it be easier to step outside the liberal/conservative,
democratic/republican
system rather than quarrel over the details of what a liberal "really is"?
-=devon=-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 14 2003 - 09:32:55 MDT