> So- anything less than Level 3 (whatever the hell
> that is...) is 'mere'.
The use of Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 was a barb
thrown at the "Level 3" folks who won't define what it
is they're talking about. It was yet another example
of how easy it is to define 3 Levels. (Exception:
Kenneth Boyd gave it a try, though I'm not sure that
what he defined is as useful as he thinks it is. I'm
waiting for his response to my post which said as much.)
As for "anything less is 'mere'", no this was not what I
was trying to say. All things, "high" and "low", are
needed. Also, what's wrong with 'mere'. We all have
flaws. These flaws make us who we are. I would even
argue that these "flaws" are often useful.
-- David Leeper dleeper@gte.net Homo Deus http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/index.htm 1 + 1 != 2 http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/CMath.html