Hi Natasha, Thanks much for the feedback.
BTW, I believe (but am not sure) the "wife" references to you were removed before that chapter was published, along with some other minor changes; the version you just read is not the final version. I think you actually complained about that when given some earlier draft to read before. That essay actually began as a profile of Sasha, and as you note, it shows its bias and origins. What the Frankfurter Allgemaine was paying me to do, when I wrote the first version, was to write profiles of cyberheroes, and Sasha was one of my choices... If you could recommend to me 3-5 online essays of yours or Max's or anyone else's, that you think it would be important for me to read in re-revising the chapter, then that would be great. Stephan and I plan to have the revised edition ready for the publisher by mid-May, so this is of current interest. Thanks for pointing out Burch's ExtroSattva post http://users.aol.com/gburch3/extrostv.html which I had somehow missed before, and which will definitely make it into the revision... ;-) I think most of your responses make sense and will be incorporated in the revision. Your critiques about my journalistic prose are pretty much fair, and are remnants of the chapter's origins as a newspaper article designed to sell newspapers ;-) However some of your comments seem a little disingenuous to me ;-) ... For instance, you say >One > of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL > humanity improve, NOT a select few who can "afford" it. but this was really not an important aspect of the attitude or philosophy of the vast majority of extropians whom I have talked to, or whose works I have read. Reading http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm in the section on "Perpetual Progress" one finds the phrase " removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization " which does carry the implication that providing the possibility for self-actualization and self-realization for everyone (not just an elite few) is important to extropianism. However, in the elaboration of "Perpetual Progress" below that, this implication is not elaborated upon in a single sentence. So, you are right that the formal statement of extropianism encompasses the idea of a compassionate extension of transhuman benefits to all. However, in most practical discourse among extropians that I noticed, this aspect seems to be downplayed or downright contradicted, much more so than emphasized or elaborated. It does not seem a core aspect of the "memeplex" of extropianism as it evolved ... If I had time I could try to substantiate this claim via a statistical analysis of posts to the extropy list, but I don't.... but I'm pretty confident of the assertion... Also when you say > You must remember that extropy is the core, original philosophy of > transhumanism. I still can't fully agree with this.... The concept of transhumanism goes back way before extropianism, and I knew every idea of transhumanism very well from other sources well before I ever heard of extropy. It is clearly true that extropianism played a huge (and hugely admirable) role in formalizing, crystallizing and popularizing the transhumanism meme, but it really did not create it... Anyway, as I said, thx for your feedback and suggestions for further reading, I hope to improve the next version ... Also I think the intentions of the chapter are clearer in context of the whole book... thanks Ben On Jan 21, 2008 1:26 AM, Natasha Vita-More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 12:54 PM 1/20/2008, Ben wrote: > > > > I created a revised version of the essay, > which may not address all your complaints, but hopefully addressed some of > them. > > http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf > > However I would be quite interested in further critiques of the 2005 > version, because the book in which is was published is going to be reissued > in 2008 and > my coauthor and I are planning to rework the chapter anyway. > I read the 2005 (above link) essay (Chapter 12) this evening. It is a > fluid, well-written piece. Thank you Ben for allowing me to comment. I > would like to first give my view as a meta observation and then focus on a > few particulars. > > The essay summarizes extropians by focusing on one person, Sasha, as if he > is a prototype for extropianism. Sasha, however brilliant and influential > in many ways, was not a prototype for extropians or the philosophy of > Extropy. Even less so is Hans Moravec, on whom the article also focuses. > In fact, because of the principles of Extropy, no one person ought to be > singled out as a prototype, as it would be incongruous. Second, the essay > critiques extropians from a political perspective rather than from > critiquing it as a philosophical and social movement. Since Extropy is a > philosophy philosophical and social movement, it must be first and foremost > recognized, observed and criticized as a philosophy philosophical and social > movement of transhumanism. Attempts to box it into a particular political > party's or ideology will no doubt miss the core beliefs and finer points > which politics, by its very nature, misses. > > A final note on the meta observation is that you missed any and all of my > own writings on transhumanism which evidences concepts concerning a more > humane transhumanism and ideas about compassion, human understanding, and > social issues. I wrote about the importance of compassion in transhumanism > from 1982 forward, and especially in the 1990s after I joined Extropy > Institute. I am not asking you to give me any credit for this; I am asking > that you not claim that it was missing from the philosophy of Extropy > because it was indeed there. Not only did I write about it, Greg Burch [for > instance, in his "extrosattva" posts] and many others did as well. At the > Extro Conferences, especially Extro5, it was a main issue of several of the > talks. > > A few of the particulars that caught my eye are: > > "This group of computer geeks and general high-tech freaks ..." This > interpretation is journalistic and lacking in credibility. First, the > founders of the institute are a philosopher and lawyer. The Board of > Directors were authors, professors, business executives, etc. > > "Along the way they want to get rid of governments, moral strictures, and > eventually humanity itself,..." This phrase lacks merit. I think a problem > with this style of writing is that it wants to use alarming statements > instead of simply telling the truth. The truth is usually far more exotic > than exaggeration. What is true is that governments which are tyrannical > and troublesome and of concern to extropians, who did not blink at saying > so. Nevertheless, truer is the fact that many extropians, including > myself, are thinking about the far future --and in the far future, > governments will be outdated structures. In the far, far future humanity > will have evolved into posthumanity. This does not mean that extropians > what to "get rid of humanity" at all. You must remember that extropy is the > core, original philosophy of transhumanism. As such, humanity is in a stage > of transition. Transition means in the process of becoming something other. > It does not mean "getting rid" of humanity. > > Using the term "Social-Darwinism" is inaccurate because it poisons the well > of your readership by implying that it is a desire for those who are more > fit than others to dominate. This term makes a socio-economic/political > inference, rather than explaining why extropians want to self-improve. One > of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL > humanity improve, NOT a select few who can "afford" it. > > "... one might call it libertarian transhumanism." Again, the overemphasis > on pigeon-holing Extropy as a political worldview is a misnomer and missing > the larger scope of the philosophy which has more to do with human potential > and individual/social change than a political world view. > > "...For instance, visionary robotics Hans Moravec, a hero ..." This > paragraph presents a false dichotomy because it equates comments about the > "far future" to the "near or present." For example, you might ask me, > "Natasha, what is your dream for the future?" And I might say, "I'd like to > see university students performing research in space habitats on the Moon." > And then you write, "Natasha is anti-academia to a remarkable, ultra-radical > extreme. She wants to do away with all universities on Earth and only have > researchers who can afford to travel to the moon, which would cost $2.5 > million dollars. She is an elitist Republican." > > In regards to Moravec, let me say that I am very fond of Hans and consider > him to be a remarkable roboticist. But his expertise is robotics and AI, > not politics. So using him as an icon in claiming extropians are radical > libertarians because of what Hans says is fun reading, but not a reasonable > conclusion. > > > Please indulge me a little further as I make comments on a personal note: > > "... Max's wife Natasha ..." Please do not call me a wife. I am a > scholar, media artist, futurist and now, according to the New York Times, > "The first female philosopher of transhumanism." Calling me a wife, however > complimentary, is degrading when you are writing about a philosophy that I > hold dear. Further I was president of Extropy Institute for a number of > years, and reducing me to "wife" position is belittling. > > "... and his wife Natasha ..." Once again, the wifey-poo description. > > After writing these comments, I went to my bookshelf and pulled down the > book I wrote in the 1990s Create/Recreate: The 3rd Millennial Culture about > Extropy and transhumanist culture. I skimmed though more than a dozen of > the collection of essays and was reminded about one core value of extropy -- > that of practical optimism. I also was reminded that the underlying concern > expressed in each essay was/is a desire to see transhumanism work to help > solve the many hardships of humanity – everywhere. > > Thank you Ben. Best wishes, > > Natasha > > > > Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in > the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and > Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts & Culture > Thinking About the Future > > 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. - Buckminster Fuller > > > ________________________________ > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth." -- Vernor Vinge ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=88116765-371fc5
