I've got the joke and I even thought it was quite humorous (when you
decided to explain it now, you could have been brave enough to admit that
it also sounds like I consider it "crap" due to my limited language skills,
and I have to have it translated into Polish in order to understand it --
as I said, the joke is OK, no offense here).
>> Kevin, thank you for another excellent example of "possibly conflicting
>> ways" to be used to "map objective reality".
>
>I don't understand what you're trying to communicate with that
>statement.
The dichotomous "crappy" part of Level-3 discussion is based on the
assumption that no one outside of Level-3 is able to comprehend it. It is
like "The Emperor's New Clothes": you are either in the "camp" of the
believers or everybody will laugh at you (or call you a low level chimp,
blame for not reading a book, etc).
Unless... you are a child. David Leeper happens to be such a (Zero :-))
Child. He *did* say what others (including you) were gently trying to
convey to Richard. David even used the "vague evocative statements"
technique recommended by the cutting edge specialists from the Bahamas!
One of Richard's claims is that objective reality can be "mapped in
possibly conflicting ways" (it is even considered a level-3 virtue).
Richard offers my wife as an example which still does not really explain
what he means. The "conflicting ways" meme is a Trojan Horse. It looks
like a noble thing to do: to be open to see new things in new light
(quantum mechanics, etc.). Once you buy it (and let it into your mind) it
may tell you "come on, this is just another version of truth" and it will
simply let you lie. This is very dangerous.
The objective reality -- if I may speak for myself -- is that I *was* in
David's "camp". Deleting me from the list of the members of that "camp"
was "mapping the objective reality" in a way convenient for your "proof".
That's why I thanked you for a good example. I hope this explains what I
was trying to communicate.
>Your approach to this forum is pretty abbrassive.
Good example of what David calls "personal".
(I understand you meant 'abrasive').
>If you took my response to your MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY post as ridicule,
>then again I'm boggled. Please have a second look at it and believe
>that it was written with nothing but respect for you and for the
>intended readers. Really, here's the URL for that post. Take a look at
>it and tell me which statements you interpretted as ridicule.
To answer your question: "Tad, first let me say that I got a kick out of
your post. It's unfortunate that this Level 3/Brodie-bashing thread took
place while Richard was on the road. When he gets back and checks his
e-mail there's going to be too much back-logged mail for him to address
each post individually."
I apologize for not mentioning that you *did* attempt to "cast Level
H(ypocrite) in a more charitable light". I forgot about it. Thank you for
the attempt. Would you mind giving an example of a specific situation
where your heroine may apply this theory in real life?
>Again, I'm not responsible for Richard's posts.
Cannot agree with you more. Although, if you continue telling us which
mail Richard will address and which he won't -- people may get the idea
that you *are* responsible for Richard's posts. It's up to you.
---------------------
Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.