EA is special, and your core point about thinking things through from first principles rather than relying on what’s happened before is strong. But EA is not that special. Other movements are more strictly defined, but no movement is as strictly defined as your characterisation—to the point where 1-3 and 5 break down. 4 doesn’t seem to hold because as John Maxwell IV said - your other examples of intensional movements don’t seem to be that similarly broad or question-based. But great piece otherwise and helpful in clarifying some of the characteristics of EA.
Your points a-f show the kind of thinking I’ve been hoping to come across more of.
Relatedly, if an intensional movement is so important for the long run, durable, and easy to move in to—then why are we finding it so hard to come up with good reference examples for intensional movements?
I have heard before that a person who currently holds a very high position within the EA movement predicted that it would fail precisely because of this lower level of connection that intensional movements have versus extensional ones. That person sure is glad now that they were wrong. It is much easier to grip an extensional movement to the ground, so to speak.
EA now has traction, as long as we don’t push the breaks, let’s use it’s momentum.
The difficulty of finding intensional movements is related to some cognitive abilities. Science and philosophy took long to evolve though saints, religions and spirits are cheap. I recommend in particular “The prehistory of the mind” by Stephen Mithen to get a grasp of why levels of intentionality are one of the newest characteristics the human mind is able to entertain, and not all human minds are equally good at it. It is connected to levels of intensionality.
EA is special, and your core point about thinking things through from first principles rather than relying on what’s happened before is strong. But EA is not that special. Other movements are more strictly defined, but no movement is as strictly defined as your characterisation—to the point where 1-3 and 5 break down. 4 doesn’t seem to hold because as John Maxwell IV said - your other examples of intensional movements don’t seem to be that similarly broad or question-based. But great piece otherwise and helpful in clarifying some of the characteristics of EA.
Your points a-f show the kind of thinking I’ve been hoping to come across more of.
Relatedly, if an intensional movement is so important for the long run, durable, and easy to move in to—then why are we finding it so hard to come up with good reference examples for intensional movements?
I have heard before that a person who currently holds a very high position within the EA movement predicted that it would fail precisely because of this lower level of connection that intensional movements have versus extensional ones. That person sure is glad now that they were wrong. It is much easier to grip an extensional movement to the ground, so to speak. EA now has traction, as long as we don’t push the breaks, let’s use it’s momentum.
The difficulty of finding intensional movements is related to some cognitive abilities. Science and philosophy took long to evolve though saints, religions and spirits are cheap. I recommend in particular “The prehistory of the mind” by Stephen Mithen to get a grasp of why levels of intentionality are one of the newest characteristics the human mind is able to entertain, and not all human minds are equally good at it. It is connected to levels of intensionality.