Absolutly! : )
> David Leeper:
> I do object to defining something with hazy or invalid definitions,
> asking money for it, and refering to those who disagree as "Chimps"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ME: I honestly think you are putting words in people's mouths.
I don't think so, even KMO jumped on Brodie about that stuff.
>
> David Leeper:
> Social Reasoning accepts the types of arguments that Logic rejects.
> Examples: Personal attacks, appeals to power or charisma, democracy.
>
> Social Reasoning rejects the types of arguments that Logic accepts.
> Example: Logic, math, et. al. seen as boring, deceptive and out of
> touch with one's day to day life.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again, I feel compelled to point out the high level of construction in
> your statement. Do you see that it is necessarily contrary? I would say,
> what is the difference between social reasoning and logical reasoning?
>
> Let's just throw this into the memetics blender (the memetomatic?).
> Whirrr.... Whether it is socail or logical, it's still just a meme.
Yes, but these classifications of memes act differently from each other,
as I pointed out above. To say it's _just_ a meme is to ignore some
valuable analysis on their behaviors.
> David Leeper:
> But if you present some term and say "It's a dog", then later you
> say "It's a rock" and then later say "It's a mathematical formula" you
> _are_ contradicting yourself.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In that particular case, I absolutely would be. But dogs and rocks are
> things and mathematical formulas are languages.
>
> Some people would say that democracy is a thing. And in defining it
> they would contradict themselves many times. Yet it does not prevent
> them from using it as a meme.
The basis of democracy is people vote to elect their leaders. What's the
basis of Level 3? Its been _months_ now and still no solid answer.
> I think democracy is beyond thingness, even beyond being a language--
> its memeness, however, allows us to grab a chunk of it by the tail and
> actually talk about it. See how it is _used_. Like level 3.
>
> Now, if you are *really* concerned about the existence of level three. I
> would caution you to analyse how real it is for *you*... real enough to
> make you hate it, real enough to make you feel slighted, real enough to
> make you compete in debunking it.
I never said there was no meme called Level 3. I said that such a meme is
poorly defined, sold, and used as a basis to insult people.
> If it were a painting, you have spent a lot of time painting the
> negative space. Which only helps define it in the long run.
The _very_ long run, months now.
> I have never met Richard... I admire his work, and I think he his a sly
> dog.
>
> He is using a super powered meme on you.
A bit of an overstatement I think. I think the energy has gone out of this
topic, although it pops up from time to time.
> Whether you agree with level three or not, level three is using you.
Really? ;->
-- David Leeper dleeper@gte.net Homo Deus http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/index.htm 1 + 1 != 2 http://home1.gte.net/dleeper/CMath.html