Let me paraphrase it with your own Santa example. If A asks: "What is 'a
principled life' if there is no Santa Claus?" B replies with: "This is a
good question, and one that you can start answering for yourself just as
soon as you disinfect yourself of the Santa Claus meme". Is it reasonable
to assume that B does not believe in Santa, even if he does not state it
explicitly?
Are we playing with words or trying to understand something better? I do
want to understand your point of view, Richard.
In the "Virus of the Mind" you do not recommend three things:
(1) "what comes naturally",
(2) "the truth",
(3) and "serving your DNA".
>From "the quest for truth" chapter I understand you suggest that looking for
too much accuracy is not very practical if one wants an enjoyable life. It
is a good point, but one which may lead to a cynical "maybe I owe you some
money, but who really knows if it's true; how do you know 2 + 2 is 4?".
Interestingly enough when I mentioned it, you did not even think of
"analyzing past events" (as you do not recommend it in the book) since you
find it "distracting from the enjoyment of life" and you suggested you'd
rather invade planet TeTa, if it only paid off. This is exactly where
ridiculing people who "spend time analyzing past events" (which you do in
the book) leads to: "who cares who is right -- it is impossible to figure it
out -- there is no Absolute Truth... so let's see who is stronger". This
may be a useful strategy on the "FFFF first level", but not even on the second!
Simply speaking, do you believe in existence of Absolute Truth, Richard?
>>Richard ridicules me
>
>I do NOT ridicule you; I adore you! I may "tease" you now and then, but
>be assured I only do that with my dearest friends. =)
I love you, Richard -- and I would appreciate your sincere answers. Maybe
you do not INTEND to ridicule me, but you DO (and I don't mind it, as long
you do answer my questions), as you ridicule all people with the "quest for
truth" meme (p. 216). If you don't see it, I have a very good book to
recommend to you: "Getting past OK" and the example with the police...
>Tad, I wrote a WHOLE BOOK on what that means!
I know it by heart by now and I am impressed. Do you mind if I want to
understand it as well?
>Why this dichotomy? Maybe the world is sometimes rational, predictable,
>intelligible, and sometimes contradictory, bewildering, unknowable.
Maybe. Do you ever fly airplanes, Richard?
>I hope you will still be on email!
We only have InterTeT on planet TeTa.
With all the best TeTa-memes and meta-Themes
---------------------
Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
3.1415926535
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.