RE: virus: Logic Nazi

carlw (
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:34:55 -0600

Ouch! Oh no! Anything but solipsism :-)

Given the subject, what I think I hoped to imply was that the way in which we approach the assimilation of knowledge allows us to tailor that knowledge to suit our reference frame. Given the clumsy wording I used here, maybe I'd better beat a retreat to physics and leave metaphysics to the people who know something about it. Or at least, to the people here who fondly imagine that they do :-/

Am I now successfully insinuating what I fondly imagined that I had meant to imply ;-?

I really do think that reality per se exists outside of self, as if the 'self' is the only object of verifiable knowledge, then the idea of a shared reality must be a myth. Experience tells me it is not a myth or else, that I cannot trust my senses and reason. If I cannot trust my senses and reason then I cannot be rational. In that case I would still rather work with my very complex and it seems to me rational delusional world, than face the "reality" of my delusion or the chaos of the idea of a level 3/4 meme on the virus mail list :-) Of course the idea of a multiperson solipsism is neither new nor unique (nor useful?) but that a master at playing with the idea of it was RA Heinlein (try The Number of the Beast). Then I had the idea that it just maybe might map rather well to the idea of circular meme propagation within a clique of people who have decided to form a mail list to discuss the subject.

Anybody who misses the humor here is requested not to reply.

TheHermit (who will not be replying, misses the humor, and always attempts to humor the misses)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf
> Of
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 5:14 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: Logic Nazi
> In a message dated 2/17/99 3:58:29 PM Central Standard Time,
> writes:
> << As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create
> reality for
> ourselves. >>
> Really? What do you mean by this? Sounds a whiff like solipsism.
> >>As to the rest, I am firmly of the opinion that we create
> reality for
> ourselves. Reason and rationality are necessary tools to sharing our
> realities. As sharing reality seems to be not only a
> requirement of our
> make-up, but pleasure creating as well (I am not addressing
> cause here),
> I'll go for the path that yields me maximized pleasure, while
> noting that
> your pleasure may be different.<<
> Now its sounding like shared solipsism, or a "socially
> constructed" reality.
> Hmmm, interesting. Not that there is necessarily anything
> wrong with that.
> >>I don't find a need to explain everything completely,
> perhaps this is why I
> have not yet found a subject where I need to close my eyes in
> order to to
> maintain a sense of order. In most every field or subject we work with
> unknowns. My experience is that unknowns can best be handled
> through logic
> and reason and not closing my eyes to anything. When the "explanation"
> becomes more complex than the phenomenon it purports to
> explain, it is time
> to look for the hidden strings. Explanations should always be
> as simple as
> possible. Although, as Einstein said, it doesn't help to make
> them simpler
> than they need to be.
> Kind regards,
> TheHermit<<
> I like your attitude on these things. It sounds very similar
> to my own. It
> sounds very liberating to me. It sort of puzzles me why Reed
> acts like these
> very same ideas are so oppressive. It makes me wonder if he
> and I are even
> talking about the same thing. And yet he insists that I am
> just "playing
> semantic games." I still don't think that we are talking
> about the same
> things at all.
> -Jake aka "MemeLab"