Jake:
>Perhaps the bodhisatva will come down from the mountain again (is it "level 3"
>or "level 4" up there in the heavens?) and explain that one to us. Do you get
>medals or insignia when you make it to the next higher level? When do you get
>to the "level beyond human"? And will I make it in time for the next
>spaceship?
The "level system" contains a kernel of truth, but again "the meme is the message". It is burrowing into your head and causing you so much consternation becuase you are still oriented towards the <hierarchy> meme (one, by the way, that Richard doesn't mention...but does a la the "level system"...demonstrate).
Frankly, Jake, any hierarchical system that placed you outside the inner circle would rub you the wrong way...and me, too. Each of us is naturally evolved to orient towards <hierarchy> becuase survival is based on who you know and what your position is in the troop. We are constantly calculating which hierarchy is to our best advantage...should I be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond...or is it time to "go it alone" and, possibly accrete my own hierarchy with me as king?
Everyone's reaction is exactly the same: "What do you mean I'm on level 2? What do I have to do to get level 3? What does level 3 get me?" If you re-read your own post you will find those same questions (veiled in sarcasm, to be sure). The same questions you ask your boss, the same questions you ask your university or chruch.
The first step to graduation is to move beyond <hierarchy>. If you want to know what Richard thinks, then you can read his book or ask him (though, I think I'd be pretty tired by now...given the number of times on this list, alone, I've heard him explain it). If you don't like his system, you don't have to use it.
Your problem is that you at least suspect that Richard's "level system" might be <true> and <logical>. And then, no matter where it put you in the <hierarchy>, you would have to accept it. If he gave you an IQ test and called you "stupid" then are you? Do you see how being ruled by <truth> and <logic> can become a problem? Even if Richard is a superior debater and you can't ever find a defect in his argument does that mean you MUST obey the dictates of his theory?
Of course not!
That is the core of Level 3. If a theory or argument doesn't agree with you and your purpose, then you don't have to obey it! You don't have anything to fear...in fact, it is your fear that <truth> might place you lower in the great chain of being than you imagine that is keeping you in place. As long as you are ruled by <I must always be rational> then your fear of losing place in the <hierarchy> will cause you to squirm and twist words like logic and reason into the most contorted pretzel. You will ignore evidence becuase it would lead you to rationally evaluate yourself as lesser and exagerate evidence that would lead you evaluate yourself as greater.
Being a slave to <reason> leads inevitably to delusion.
>I personally don't think it is sanely possible, or even desireable
>to hold and operate on inconsistent world views. But maybe
>that is just the rationality talking. I can quit anytime. And
>then I will take it . . . one day at a time. Maybe Brodie can be
>my sponsor. Assuming he hasn't strangled me by then.
It's great that you're able to say that. The next step is to say it without so many protective layers of irony. You don't need them becuase this kind of communication is not ruled by <logic>. There aren't any traps, and your words cannot bind you unless you choose to let them.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------