Re: virus: Levels
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:21:56 EST

In a message dated 2/16/99 11:56:34 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

<< 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. >>

I will read it sometime. Is that "Viruses of the Mind" that we are talking about?

>>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 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 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.<<

Rationality is not an authority. It is a criticial process that I subject my authorities to. Reasons are authoritative justifications, and if they survive rational criticism, I can call them reasonable justifications. People can have different reasonable justifications than I do. We all start in media res, and others are going to have different starting positions from me, therefore I would expect that their authoritative reasons will be somewhat different.

>>Being a slave to <reason> leads inevitably to delusion.

No. Hiding from rational criticism leads inevitably to delusion.

>>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, you are a hoot. Your attempts "feel my anxieties" are laughable. Rationality is not a person, or an entity, or even an authority, it is a process. I have my own real life heirarchy games to worry about without inventing new ones in cyberspace.

I think you confuse my words and their meanings, and come up with a whole "anxiety map" of Jake that is just flat-assed wrong. You confuse my use of "rationality" to mean a justificational system. A justificational system is generally authoritative. "Rationality" - is just a word that refers to the process of rational criticism. A justificational system that is in principle subject to rational criticism on all points is generally going to be called "reason". Of course there can be several justificational systems of reason. A justificational system that is not in priciple subject to rational criticism on at least some points is generally going to be called "faith."

Some people claim that their "faith" is compatible with "reason", but what they are really saying is that only some points in their justificational system are not subjectable to rational criticism, while all the others are. I think statements like this convey no information about their "faith". Because all people who have justificational faith systems are going to subject at least some of those things to rational criticism (really probably most of those things unless we are talking about extreme orthodoxy). To expect otherwise, is like expecting a person not to breath. In fact many religious people can give you a pretty short list of what their articles of faith are.

To use the intetional stance - Religion doesn't want to stop you from thinking, it only wants to stop you from thinking about certain things. Everybody's faith is generally going to be compatible with THEIR reason. The point that makes it faith and thus irrational, is that they do not hold their articles of faith in principle (or in practice either) open to rational criticism. Not that they don't hold anything open to rational criticism.

Non- Rationalism</A>

Pancritical Rationalism