From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 23:49:16 MDT
At 12:19 PM 8/11/03 +0930, Emlyn wrote:
>The comments below prompt me to ask some more of my irritating questions,
>apologies in advance.
All questions are entertained.
>It is becoming increasingly unclear to me that what it is to be an extropian
>is the same for every extropian. In fact, I think we may hold disjoint sets
>of values, and disjoint definitions, in many cases. ie: We may be using the
>same word, but in fact have no common ground. I am brought to this by a long
>history of reading the list, and in particular by the comment below from
>Rafal, and by Robert's assertion that maximising complexity is his guiding
>principle in being an extropian.
Since we seem to be moving farther and farther away from words like
extropian and extropianism, it will mostt likely become a moot
point. Words like Extropy and Extropic will most likely become terms used
for innovative thinking and reliability.
You are certainly an "extropic" thinker.
>2 - Pretty close to it, but I'm still having trouble comitting, even after
>all these years. I guess I'm just a tough, non-joiner kinda dude. Also, the
>label "Extropian" makes people immediately think it's some kind of
>californian cult (which are after all quite famous around the world), and
>when you say "Well, it is from California, but it's not a cult, really",
>people begin nodding slowly backing away, making no sudden movements, you
>know the drill.
Not just California type of group, but any local. Transhumanism gets the
same type of response, but will fair well because there are so many
different organizations within transhumanity to balance it out.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:01:50 MDT