From peter at optimal.org Fri Jul 8 15:55:47 2005 From: peter at optimal.org (Peter Voss) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:55:47 -0700 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] a2i2 news update - We're Hiring! Message-ID: All Systems Go for Project Aigo - We're Hiring! Please spread the word. Help us find additional talent. http://adaptiveai.com/news/index.htm Towards Increased Intelligence! Peter Voss a2i2 - Adaptive A.I. Inc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bronto at pobox.com Sun Jul 10 07:31:34 2005 From: bronto at pobox.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:31:34 -0700 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> > Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian >> approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like >> "global regulatory framework". Natasha Vita-More wrote: > . . . why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political > theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to > intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change > and how the world can function in order to protect individuality and > freedom. Every political regulation is prevention of some kind of individuality, denial of some kind of freedom. That is the core competence of the political process; thus we agree that each political system is inadequate to preserving freedom and nurturing individuality. Perry and I therefore prefer to rely on *non*political approaches. They require more imagination sometimes, but on the other hand they cause fewer deaths. So we are disappointed to see Max now apparently willing to resort to the "easy" road of control by threat of violence. Fyi & imho: libertarianism is more an ethical theory than a political theory; there are libertarian anarchists, libertarian democrats and libertarian monarchists. Everyone agrees that government can exist and function only by doing things that would be wrong if a private party did them. Libertarians hold that classifying such acts as "political" does not make them less wrong. (Not all are anarchists because not all believe that the evils inevitably tolerated in anarchy are less than those necessarily created by the state.) > If you are referring to Max [...] > then you would find that his eloquence has evolved, not declined. That's not what bothers us. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ "If only he'd used his genius for niceness instead of evil." --Agent 86 From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 15:24:45 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:24:45 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:31 AM 7/10/2005, Antonwrote: >>Perry E. Metzger wrote: >>>It is sad to see people who once wrote eloquently about libertarian >>>approaches to the world giving even lip service to words like "global >>>regulatory framework". > >Natasha Vita-More wrote: >>. . . why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political >>theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to >>intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and >>how the world can function in order to protect individuality and >>freedom. > >Every political regulation is prevention of some kind of individuality, >denial of some kind of freedom. That is the core competence of the >political process; thus we agree that each political system is >inadequate to preserving freedom and nurturing individuality. Yes, we agree. >Perry and I therefore prefer to rely on *non*political approaches. >They require more imagination sometimes, but on the other hand they >cause fewer deaths. So we are disappointed to see Max now apparently >willing to resort to the "easy" road of control by threat of violence. Are you stating that libertarianism is "non" political? Please be careful not to make assumption about what Max does and does not think without speaking directly to him. Perhaps this is a good time to clear the decks and one on one with Max rather than forming assumptions amongst yourselves. Assumptions can be beneficial when surveying the temperature, but are most often inadequate. >Fyi & imho: libertarianism is more an ethical theory than a political >theory; there are libertarian anarchists, libertarian democrats and >libertarian monarchists. Everyone agrees that government can exist >and function only by doing things that would be wrong if a private >party did them. Libertarians hold that classifying such acts as >"political" does not make them less wrong. (Not all are anarchists >because not all believe that the evils inevitably tolerated in anarchy are >less than those necessarily created by the state.) Yes, I would like to see libertarianism as an ethical theory rather than a political theory, but unfortunately it is most widely known as a political stance or position. Like most political position it falls short because it is dogmatized in a stance that is unwilling to negotiate. Resolving conflicts and developing procedures for creating workable solutions is about negotiation. >>If you are referring to Max [...] >>then you would find that his eloquence has evolved, not declined. > >That's not what bothers us. Then come forward and talk with Max. Best, Natasha >-- >Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ >"If only he'd used his genius for niceness instead of evil." --Agent 86 Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bronto at pobox.com Sun Jul 10 19:10:53 2005 From: bronto at pobox.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:53 -0700 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42D172BD.7010809@pobox.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Yes, I would like to see libertarianism as an ethical theory rather than > a political theory, but unfortunately it is most widely known as a > political stance or position. Like most political position it falls > short because it is dogmatized in a stance that is unwilling to > negotiate. Are you talking about reality or about public perception of libertarians? We negotiate all the time, that's the nature of social life. Have you known libertarians to refuse to negotiate the terms of a transaction? Why, just two days ago I had to negotiate how some papers (which were in my custody but not of any interest to me) were to be transferred to someone thirty miles away. A mutually beneficial arrangement was found, and no one had to bend any principles. > Resolving conflicts and developing procedures for creating > workable solutions is about negotiation. Agreed. Libertarians hold that the consent of a political majority to impose a resolution on everyone is not a legitimate substitute for the consent of all those affected, and that the outcomes of such processes are less likely to be "workable solutions" in the long run than the spontaneous orders generated by private negotiation. In the private sector there's room for a thousand parallel solutions and people can choose, in light of both theory and experience, those that seem likely to work best. The political process is not about resolving conflict, unless that's an euphemism for suppressing some interests in favor of others. Democracy, from the point of view of its professional practitioners, *requires* conflict. Political solutions inherently *create* conflict: there would be no quarrel over evolution or sex-ed, for example, if most people were not stuck with paying for and sending their children to politically-managed schools. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ "How'd ya like to climb this high *without* no mountain?" --Porky Pine From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 20:31:46 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:31:46 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Hi Perry, Just to close and respect Simon's wishes let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. Anyway, let's discuss off list and see if we can resolve some misconceptions and soften your blows, which frankly are more like a lynching than from a rational aim. Regardless I'm glad that you speak so candidly. My best to all, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bronto at pobox.com Sun Jul 10 21:02:52 2005 From: bronto at pobox.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:02:52 -0700 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <42D18CFC.1060404@pobox.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Just to close and respect Simon's wishes (Note by the way that Simon's complaint does not apply to the only list to which I'm posting, exi-bay-chat.) > let me say that you [Perry] are wrong, wrong and wrong. That summary has the virtue of conciseness if not clarity. Do you mean mistaken in inferring your/Max's position, or in construing the meaning of the ominous phrase "global regulatory framework"; mistaken in believing (e.g.) that the laws of economics are knowable, broadly known, and not subject to repeal; morally wrong in opposing the well-meaning schemes of our betters; or some other kind(s) of wrong? > Anyway, let's discuss off list and see if we can resolve some > misconceptions and soften your blows, which frankly are more > like a lynching than from a rational aim. . . . Aww, did the poor wittle Progressive ox get gored in spite of all its good intentions? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ "How'd ya like to climb this high *without* no mountain?" --Porky Pine From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 21:32:46 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:32:46 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <42D18CFC.1060404@pobox.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D18CFC.1060404@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710161331.028548b8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:02 PM 7/10/2005, Anton Sherwood wrote: >Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > Just to close and respect Simon's wishes > >(Note by the way that Simon's complaint does not apply >to the only list to which I'm posting, exi-bay-chat.) Okay, great. I sent you a message off list, saying that your reply to me was very well stated. > > let me say that you [Perry] are wrong, wrong and wrong. > >That summary has the virtue of conciseness if not clarity. Well yes, when stated calmly. I think I got the phrase from Samantha in "Sex In the City" where she says: "No, no and no." about something that she does not agree with. It's just factual, not emotional. >Do you mean mistaken in inferring your/Max's position, Mistaken in inferring my position (Max can speak for himself). I am proud of some early extropians and their passionate views, and those views were/are the views of individuals not ExI or the magazine. "or in construing the meaning of the ominous phrase "global regulatory framework";" Global regulatory framework was written by someone and I do not know what she really truly means by it. I tend to think that the Proactionary Principle is a pretty darn good means for addressing global issues. "mistaken in believing (e.g.) that the laws of economics are knowable, broadly known, and not subject to repeal; morally wrong in opposing the well-meaning schemes of our betters; or some other kind(s) of wrong?" Economics is not my subject, although I rather like the views of Shapiorand Varian. I'm thinking toward a networked economy. > > Anyway, let's discuss off list and see if we can resolve some > > misconceptions and soften your blows, which frankly are more > > like a lynching than from a rational aim. . . . > >Aww, did the poor wittle Progressive ox get gored in spite of all its good >intentions? Oxen don't have enough testosterone to be progressive. Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 10 21:34:39 2005 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:34:39 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710163338.0289d498@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:29 PM 7/10/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Natasha Vita-More writes: > > let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. > >I'm sure I am. I'm told so more than often enough. I have that same characteristic. But it is one that leaves ample room for discernment and growth. N Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist, Designer Studies of the Future, University of Houston President, Extropy Institute Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. Alvin Toffler Random acts of kindness... Anne Herbet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 18:58:57 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Natasha Vita-More's message of "Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:24:45 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Natasha Vita-More writes: >>Perry and I therefore prefer to rely on *non*political approaches. >>They require more imagination sometimes, but on the other hand they >>cause fewer deaths. So we are disappointed to see Max now apparently >>willing to resort to the "easy" road of control by threat of violence. > > Are you stating that libertarianism is "non" political? Unfortunately, we lack the right words in our language. However, Anton is more or less saying that, and he's right. Science is not based on faith, and is therefore (to the scientist) distinct from religion. However, to a religious person, I suppose that science could be thought of as just another sort of religion. Libertarianism is not based on the idea of using political processes to effect change in society. As such, it is distinct from other "political" viewpoints in that it is, in fact, a non-political viewpoint -- it is the viewpoint that politics (taken narrowly as decision making via coercively enforced decisions) is in itself the problem. The libertarian "unasks" the question of what political means to use -- he consistently chooses non-political means. However, I suppose to someone who doesn't understand, libertarianism just looks like some sort of half-assed random collection of ideas and is no different from any other "political" viewpoint. > Please be careful not to make assumption about what Max does and does > not think without speaking directly to him. I know that at one time, Max happily called himself an anarchocapitalist. I also know that, at one time, the extropian view was an explicitly anarchocapitalist viewpoint. I can quote from early copies of "Extropy" magazine if you wish. I also know that Max now denies in public that Extropianism ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let alone anarchocapitalism (a counterfactual statement), and that you and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means. See, for example, the "Geoethical nanotechnology" conference, and its interest in "global regulatory" mechanisms to "manage" nanotechnology. Beyond that, of course, I know very little, but it *seems* as though he would no longer think of himself as a libertarian. > Yes, I would like to see libertarianism as an ethical theory rather > than a political theory, but unfortunately it is most widely known as > a political stance or position. Like most political position it falls > short because it is dogmatized in a stance that is unwilling to > negotiate. So many things in life are so terribly dogmatic. "I would very much like for there to be a God that created me, rather than random mutations mediated by natural selection. How horrible, then, of the biologists to insist that evolution is a fact, and to fail to compromise with me!" > Resolving conflicts and developing procedures for creating workable > solutions is about negotiation. There is no negotiation here. If you claim a regulation will help mankind, it is either true or false -- it is not subject to decision by negotiation. It is not some sort of aesthetic decision. It is not amenable to compromise any more than the laws of physics are amenable to compromise. Perhaps you claim that, dogmatically, we refuse to work with and mollify the people in power so that they will not crush us, poor weak stepchildren that we are, and so in fear of the boot coming down. If only we would talk with the "powerful" we would be so much safer! If so, I think there is substantial evidence that you are wrong. Either way, I don't see what needs "negotiating" here. -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com From perry at piermont.com Sun Jul 10 21:29:18 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:29:18 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: on Geoethical Nanotechnology In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Natasha Vita-More's message of "Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:31:46 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050709143637.03e70428@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstr9vk2.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050709230604.048717f0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <42D0CED6.8060703@pobox.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710101740.02915228@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87u0j28p3i.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050710152802.044dfd00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87fyum73kh.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Natasha Vita-More writes: > let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. I'm sure I am. I'm told so more than often enough. .pm From max at maxmore.com Wed Jul 13 02:37:58 2005 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:58 -0500 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perry at piermont.com Wed Jul 13 04:42:43 2005 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:42:43 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> (Max More's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:37:58 -0500") References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Max More writes: > Before I address the specifics I want to say that your statements perturb > me because I hold authenticity as a core value. I have always strived to > act and speak authentically, even when it made me very unpopular. To be > accused of pretending to be other than who I am, to be called coy, > deceptive, disingenuous, and so on, is shocking to me. It is certainly > not something I take lightly, especially when the accusation comes not > from some random ignoramus, but from someone such as yourself. Actually, I didn't refer to you in such terms -- you never replied to any of this until now, so obviously I couldn't be making any claims about what you said. I was referring entirely to _Natasha's_ comments, which I think were, if anything, astonishingly indirect. If she had come out and said something like "Max intends to argue against government regulation of nanotechnology at this conference" or what have you, I wouldn't make any such statement -- but instead she avoided saying any such thing in reply after reply. I note that your own reply is, if not absolutely clear, certainly not evasive in the same way. In any case, I'll state my main issue pretty briefly and clearly. At the time I started using the term "Extropian", it was pretty clearly linked in the minds of almost everyone else I knew who used the term, including (I believe) you, with anarchocapitalist ideals. In the interim, the term, as promoted by ExI, has very strongly ceased to mean that, and appears to have come to mean (as promoted by ExI) "Transhumanist" in some much more generic way. For a lot of us, this is a substantial disappointment. The "Extropian Principles" were drafted substantially after the term came to be widely used by a significant sized group of people. So far as I can tell, that group had a pretty clear idea that what distinguished the "Extropian" subset from the "Transhumanist" superset was a strong commitment to libertarianism. (Indeed, otherwise, why did one need a new term? FM-2030 had already pushed "Transhuman" as the word for the superset idea.) I think many of us would have been rather disappointed if we had thought "Spontaneous Order" was chosen for any reason other than the fact that "Best Do It So" was a neat mnemonic, and we would have been surprised to learn that it implied anything other than a strong libertarian commitment. Here it is, many years later, and as it stands, I note that the word "libertarian" only appears once on ExI's web site, in a denial, to whit: [pardon the light editing...] http://www.extropy.org/About.htm 1. Does ExI support democracy? 1. Does ExI support democracy? 1. Yes. [...] 2. Is ExI a libertarian organization? 2. No. Extropy Institute has always been transpolitical in its search for the best means for dealing with the structure and affairs of governments worldwide. ExI has never promoted any political party or position. Issues concerning the future must be addressed outside the box of political positioning and political dogma. Note the "ExI has *never*..." ...that seems like a fairly clear repudiation of the ideas that many of us started in this whole business with, and a denial that they were ever part of the mix. If it isn't, I'm not sure how. I've seen lots of other statements in other places to the same effect. Much of the mail I exchanged with Natasha a few days ago (most of which was *not* public -- that stopped early on, after Simon's comments) indicated that she very clearly believed that calling ones self a libertarian was somehow a bad thing, and she claimed to be "transpolitical", a term that ExI seems to claim as well (see above). In the email I exchanged with her, I quoted you as saying that you no longer considered yourself to be a libertarian, either. So, what's the general issue here? Disappointment covers it. > My specific responses to these statements: > "You and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means." > > How do you know whether -- if those folks *do* coercive means -- > that we hang out with them *happily*? Rather than with, say, > discomfort, reluctance, out of a sense of responsibility for > blunting their effect, etc? You are right, I have no idea -- I only know you seem to voluntarily associate yourself with them and seem to promote their conferences and such without terribly much in the way of public disclaimer as to your take on such conferences and the role you play at them. In any case, however, in the half dozen odd email exchanges Natasha and I had, she never bothered to use terms like the ones you just did, such as "discomfort" or "reluctance". Perhaps your views and hers are not the same, but again, ExI clearly seems to distance itself from libertarian ideals and calls itself "transpolitical" these days, so how is one to know? > On the specific matter of the Geoethics seminar: You don't know what I'm > going to say about the "global regulatory framework". (Nor do I know what > the organizer means by that.) And yet you folks promoted the conference, without the least comment about its possible spin. I might have felt a wee bit more uncomfortable promoting a conference that mentions a suspicious term right off the bat, especially when I don't know the organizer's meaning. > Why assume I will favor lots of government regulation? Natasha never bothered to state your position when I asked her directly and indirectly, and you guys were promoting a conference that itself states it promotes a "global regulatory regime", so what was I to think? It would have been simple enough to be direct in correcting any misapprehensions I had, which you have (generally) done in your own message. As I indicated in a private mail message to her, being indirect, coy and non-responsive to questions tends to make someone believe you are trying to hide an answer you don't think the interlocutor would like to hear. > "Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote > lovingly of anarchism" > I do not pretend that, and never have, neither to others nor > to myself. On what basis do you suggest otherwise? Well, Natasha said things in private mail with enormous ambiguity associated with them -- it would probably be unseemly for me to quote all of them because the mail was private, but I'll include a few paragraphs here. She concluded, after I pointed out that you had written some pretty spectacular anarchist essays, with this: How old was he when he was an anarchocapitalist? Was he a "college" student? Would he not have grown since his early days like most college students? Why not trust that Max has made the right decision for the benefit and purpose of extropy? Why not learn from what he has learned? Do you think he has sat in a box for the past 15+ years not growing and experiencing life? which would seem to be some sort of plea that we ignore your "youthful folly" in the matter, though I will agree that she no longer seemed by the end of the exchanges to have been denying/avoiding the fact that you were an anarchist at one time, and substituted instead a sort of (apparent) embarrassment about it. > The only thing I can think of that might give you that impression was > part of what I said in the NeoFiles interview last year. I said: "Even > the earliest version of the Principles did not, in fact, enclose a > strong belief in a libertarian pro-free enterprise politics." I stand by > what I said there. You may be mixing up the views that appeared in > Extropy magazine (including my own views) with the essential ideas that > were expressed in the Extropian Principles. ...not to mention the editorial viewpoint explanation in issue #1, which I quoted to Natasha and which explicitly lists libertarianism as the political viewpoint of the magazine. You have to remember that to most of us, "Extropian" was a label for a community, which came significantly before the formally stated "Principles", and "Extropy" was first and most prominently a magazine that had brought that community together, and only many years later was it principally part of the name of ExI -- indeed, it was years before there *was* an ExI. > The Principles never did require a strong belief in libertarianism as a > particular political philosophy. That's not how the rest of us interpreted the whole thing... > Part of the disagreement may be that, in your mind, "extropy" > *essentially* implied libertarianism, even anarchocapitalism, whereas in > my mind it essentially embodied the freedom and ability to change, to > improve, and to work freely with others for these goals. It implied > libertarianism only *contingently*. I read that as a sort of retroactive re-reading of what the whole thing was about. In the beginning, there was, of course, a magazine. Extropy, "Vaccine for Future Shock", "Introductory Issue", No. 1, Fall 1988. In this context, I read "Extropy" to mean "the editorial view of the magazine": _Extropy_ [emphasis in original] takes the point of view that [...] the most efficient economic and political systems are those that maximize human liberty. Thus the best economic systems are free market, and the best political systems libertarian. That's hardly the only quote I can use, but I'm trying to be brief here. Virtually every issue at the start touched on it though, and one early anarchism issue was particularly devoted to it. Then there was, of course, a mailing list. This was the announcement for that mailing list, sent August 19, 1991, which as I recall I ran by you before sending (and which you didn't seem to have occasion to disagree with at the start): Extropians is devoted to the discussion and development of Extropian ideas. The term "Extropian" was coined by the journal "Extropy", a publication devoted to Extropian philosophy, and this list is a spinoff of the journal. Extropians may be roughly described as those simultaneously interested in anarchocapitalist politics, cryonics (and other life extension techniques), the technological extension of human intelligence and perception, nanotechnology, spontaneous orders, and a number of other related ideas. If you are an Extropian, the concept that these are all related topics will seem natural. All Extropians (and those who suspect that they are Extropians) are invited to join. Then there was a community, and it built up surprisingly quickly once we had the mailing list, thanks to the viral spread of memes in the internet, and that community was about as solidly anarchocapitalist as these things get, and what remained was tiny minority of libertarians who leaned very strongly that way but weren't 100% sure. As I recall, a big attraction at the 5th anniversary "Extropaganza" party was Robin Hanson (then without fame in the outside world but now a pretty well known economist) discussing anarchocapitalist criminal justice systems in an overpacked room on Mark's lower floor. (The rest of the house, many joked, was a Temporary Autonomous Zone, after the name of the book by Hakkim Bey, and everyone of course remembers Romana and Jeff as The State and The Taxpayer.) Anyway, somewhere between the time that I bailed out of close contact with everyone because I had too much to do, and now, we've gotten to the point where the President of the organization that has the name "Extropy" branded on it calls herself "transpolitical" and chides me for being a libertarian thusly: . . . why would you hang your future so tightly to any one political theory when no one political theory is substantially adequate to intelligently address the rate of change and the effects of change and how the world can function in order to protect individuality and freedom. and What is truly sad is that anyone, including yourself, would stay pigeonholed in thinking. So, something, clearly, has changed about the community in question, given that we used to kick people off the mailing list for saying things like that because we didn't want to bother people with flame wars about such a basic assumption as libertarianism (let alone anarchism). Indeed, in response to my assertion that the group had been very strongly and foundationally anarchocapitalist at one time, she said: I do not think you are correct about extropian. Perhaps there were a lot of you who believed that and made it so for yourselves, but I see no evidence of it being true. If so, I would never have joined ExI. Why? Because such a tact would positions its members and I do not like positioning or labeling. I find both counter productive to individuality, and on this I speak strongly and directly and completely. Labeling is contrary to individuality. It is like censoring freedom of thought and freedom of action. Perhaps you yourself have been completely above board about all of this. I apologize if, in my shock at your wife's messages, I overstepped and made some excessively broad remarks of my own. My intent was never to cause anyone any pain or spread enmity. However, the fact remains that you (apparently) now disown the term "libertarian": I am not a libertarian, unless you take a generously broad view of the term. and that the organization as a whole now denies that it has any sort of libertarian bent or focus, and claims to support democracy (something I don't myself support, although I'll grudgingly participate in things like voting regardless of the possible sanction for the system that implies.) > Perry, what are your intentions in making the claims that you've made? > Are you trying to damage my reputation? Simply set the facts straight? > Express your feelings? Something else? I suppose I'd like my label back. I have a bunch of friends who used to enjoy using the label and would like to use it again -- we're very tired of having labels taken out from under us (we liked "Liberal" before the Fabians corrupted it, for example). I know Natasha doesn't like labels -- labeling being, in her opinion (expressed above) contrary to individuality -- and so perhaps you folks aren't sufficiently attached to it to want to make further use of it. I'm sure we won't mind if the label arrives somewhat soiled -- we can have it cleaned and repainted ourselves. > Does my account make sense to you? Well, so far as it goes, I think it is fine. I have no particular urge to alter your reputation, though it would appear that your spouse does and perhaps you should have a talk with her about it. I also have no particular urge to be in a fight with you or to be your enemy -- indeed I imagine I'd rather enjoy having dinner with you again someday. However, it does appear that we've really gone in separate directions here. > Does anything seem to be missing? Only things that are largely of personal interest. > If so, what would it take to convince you that I am not deceptive or > inauthentic? Again, let me emphasize that I was responding entirely to Natasha's comments and not to yours, you having made none up to now. I stand by my comment that I found her email coy and unresponsive for the most part, which was rather frustrating since I kept calling (I thought) for clarity and kept being replied to with unenlightening things like: Just to close and respect Simon's wishes let me say that you are wrong, wrong and wrong. I will state, unequivocally, that your own message on this has not been ambiguous and uninformative in the same way, and perhaps reflects a genuine viewpoint about the history of the term "Extropian", albeit one which I and many others do not share. -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jul 13 15:36:45 2005 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:36:45 -0700 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Save Exi-Bay-Announce for announcements! In-Reply-To: <87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050712212057.03a10610@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <87pstnnwos.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <42D5350D.5010607@pobox.com> For the love of cute kittens! No, you do not have to get in the last word on exi-bay-announce too. Just stop posting there. The other forums are fine, just not that one. Sheeblers. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jul 13 18:52:43 2005 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:52:43 -0400 Subject: [Exi-bay-chat] Re: Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history Message-ID: <380-220057313185243794@M2W053.mail2web.com> I think one of the problems in communication is not everyone is on the same timeline and while one person may think that his email should be priority, the other person may have other priorities to tend to. We need to be careful about our demands of others and careful not to over impose our own needs just because we want our answers now and in the manner we want them. Civility is essential and getting to the facts of a situation is more aptly arrived at through consideration, tact, and deference. Perry stated: >I will state, unequivocally, that your own message on this has not >been ambiguous and uninformative in the same way, and perhaps reflects >a genuine viewpoint about the history of the term "Extropian", albeit >one which I and many others do not share. I did not think I had to defend Max, as I knew that he would respond to you himself when he was able to. Further, it is not a matter of being what you call indirect or as you say - ?coy?, it is a matter of not wanting to be in the middle of your battlefield, one which I sensed would only get more fueled by anything I would say because in the end, it was not me you addressed, it was Max. No matter how I would have answered you, the volume of your posts would increase until I would finally unplug. One thing that strikes me as conflicting is that you stated that you don?t read the newsletter, go to the events, and know about what goes on at ExI, etc. et al; yet feel justified in making accusations. I think that the issue is an important one, and one which take more time and thought that a number of erratic emails full of accusations and blame going back and forth. I believe that you are wrong in the way you approached me by attacking me, wrong in you assessment of my involvement with the Webcast, and wrong about why I did not respond to you (accusing me of claiming liable ? something that is not mediation and quite off-putting.) One thing I am sure of is that in all cases no one is perfectly correct and no one is entirely wrong. We all need better communication with civility in hopes of finding resolve. If anyone would like to discuss this with me, I am available for a conference call with the Board of ExI. But it's probably best to do this over the weekend or after August 1st. The number is 512.263.2749; but email me first so that I can calendar a teleconference with others. My best to all, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .