<html>
<body>
At 12:53 PM 12/30/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 12/30/07, Natasha Vita-More
<natasha@natasha.cc> wrote:<br>
><br>
> At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, Harvey wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore@austin.rr.com
wrote:<br>
> > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its
relationship to<br>
> > progress and change within the context of perception and
its<br>
> > transformation?<br>
><br>
> Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set
of options. Such<br>
> rigorous thinking and precision of expression<br><br>
Are you serious?? I see some interesting thinking but far from<br>
rigorous or precise.</blockquote><br>
I admit that I was abbreviating data to be brief rather than overboard
while at the same time attempting to get the point across, but your
condemnation is a bit unrealistic. This list has a high
comprehension level and all to often people waste time with overwriting
what could be done simply.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><snip><br><br>
<br>
> Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in
motion.<br>
> But if risk is the probability that something will cause injury or
harm, it<br>
> is not the correct concept. I would not dare to enter an
environment that<br>
> probably will cause me harm. On the other hand, I would enter
an<br>
> environment that could cause me harm if I was not aware of
dangers. So, I<br>
> would opt for the possibility of injury or harm rather than probably
of<br>
> injury or harm.<br>
><br>
> Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of
observing an<br>
> environment for its potential and possible injury or harm rather
than<br>
> assuming that the probability of harm will ensue.<br>
><br>
> What do you think?<br><br>
The above appears to be a statement involving the relative merits
and<br>
applicability of a proactionary versus precautionary stance in
regard<br>
to intentional action within a context of uncertain risk.
</blockquote><br>
No, please move from that line of thinking. I am not interested in
the Proactionary Principle, but in innovation in relation to
progress/change in regards to perception/consciousness.<br><br>
Natasha<br><br><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha</a>
<a href="http://www.natasha.cc/"> Vita-More</a>
<dd>PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the
Faculty of Technology,
<dd>School of Computing, Communications and Electronics,
<dd>University of Plymouth, UK
<dd><a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts &
Culture</a>
<dd><a href="http://extropy.org/">Thinking About the
</a><a href="http://extropy.org/">Future</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>