On Oct 22 Jason wrote:
>One problem I'm having is that it seems that Brodie's definition of the
>level-3 mind is unassailable. Firstly, it is fairly vague. [...] Secondly, the
>disclaimers and warnings effectively oil the walls of the level-3 fortress.
[...]
>To reach level-3 one must sit and meditate with an open mind until you
>suddenly grok the level-3 mind. These kind of instructions usually go hand
>in hand with fasting and/or hallucinagenic ingestion.
I am looking forward to Richard's response to Jason's post. There is
something fishy about level-3 arguments. Let's have a look at some "level-3
tricks" (quite a nice little meme) on this list.
It can be a very useful (and not honest) concept to avoid a difficult
question with:
"when you become an adult you will understand" or "this can only be
understood by people from level-3".
Richard came with a set of good level-3 tricks in May: "I'm not being
deliberately evasive, but the questions you ask cannot be answered in a
satisfying way in a level-2 framework." What a beauty!
Another good one: "I don't use that distinction-meme, which again is a
level-3 answer".
Or this one on consciousness: "You have a Level-2 definition of "conscious",
which is more like depth of understanding. It has nothing to do with Level-3
consciousness, which is being at cause in your life."
When I said: "I hope this is not your intension to kill my honest beliefs
just because it is your advice", Richard responded:
>I LIVE to kill people's beliefs! I want to get you out of Level 2!
Thank you Richard. What makes you think I am on level 2?
On October 16 Richard wrote:
>I've never been to Tibet, but there are quite a few people in Seattle
>who live much of their lives in Level 3.
At least we know there are some level-3 people in Seattle. Who are they,
Richard?
Can you share some examples? It may help better understand what you mean by
level-3.
(On the other hand, on planet TeTa we live very special lives. You will
never be able to grok it... Just believe me and follow what I say... I have
some USEFUL ways of getting what I want from you, as long as you believe me)
Great concepts CAN be explained. If a person is capable of grasping them is
a totally different thing. Any explanation "you are to stupid to understand
it" is not an explanation at all, and it does not move us forward.
I think the level-3 concept is a good start, and it can be worked on. The
first step is to agree not to use "level-3 tricks" in our discussion about
it. Is it OK with you, Richard? I am interested in building this model up,
as I am constantly interested in a better and better life (as long as I live).
My first thought about Richard's three levels from the "Virus of the Mind"
was Maslow's hierarchy of needs: (1) survival and (2) security needs =
level-1; social needs = level-2; (4) self-esteem and (5) selfactulization =
level-3. Can you relate to that, Richard?
Maslow also came up with two additional needs: the need for beauty and the
need for truth! The Truth is obviously level-4...
I want to get you up to Level 4, Richard!
Jason continues:
>Either way, it seems that the truth is regarded as unimportant,
>the usefulness of a meme being preferred. In fact, it seems that
>to worry about the truth of a meme is fundamentally a level-2
>concern. If it's useful, use it. If it happens to also be true,
>great, but that's not really an issue. Truth may be correlated
>with usefulness, but I suppose usefulness does not have to be
>correlated with truth.
These are the Absolute Truth and Memetical Hipocrysy threads from May. I am
glad you brought this back, Jason. I think this is important. I have the
same impression that Richard suggests that truth can be somehow "worked
around". This is what I called "memetical hypocrisy" in May (using
Nathaniel Branden's concept of self-esteem):
"A belief in a rational world increases self-esteem and chances for success,
as people like Bill Gates and his close friends must know very well. The
optimal selfish-meme strategy is to participate in spreading beliefs in an
'unknowable' world, but to secretly ignore them. This way more people with
lower self-esteem will follow them and work for them (longer hours). Those
people are easier to
control. They can be told what they *should do* and what a 'principled
life' is. This is MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY."
(BTW, Memetical Hypocrisy is illegal on planet TeTa).
Having met Richard Brodie at the Dawkins' presentation in Seattle, I am sure
Richard does it unconsciously. He is a charming and a very bright person
(if we could only level to the same level with level-3).
How USEFUL is it to regard truth as unimportant, Richard?
---------------------
Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
3.1415926535897
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.