virus: Honesty vs. Parasitism
David Rosdeitcher (76473.3041@compuserve.com)
06 Feb 97 16:59:37 EST
This post contrasts 2 different methods of thinking: Honest and Corrupt. If
somebody disagrees with me, I don't necessarily consider them dishonest-they
could be bringing up sincere questions or valid criticisms. But there is a
dishonest method of thinking that is what I have been attacking. Honest and
dishonest thinking methods can be contrasted below as I compare different
arguments of recent posts.
Vicki Rosenzweig asked 2 questions. I said in a recent post that since axioms
can't be refuted, they must be accepted. She brought up the question, that if
you can't refute a statement that creation happened at a certain time, does that
mean I accept that as well? This is a case where I didn't make my post clear by
not explaining that an axiom is implicit in all knowledge, needs no proof, and
has no alternative, unlike a statement about when and where creation started.
Then she asked what I meant by equating objectivism with free societies and
brought up the fact that democracies existed before Ayn Rand was born. Again-I
did not make myself clear. Throughout history there has been a strong
correlation between the way people think and individual rights. The more reason,
the more freedom and achievement for individuals. Before Rand was John Locke who
was responsible for the birth of America and before him came Aquinas who
instigated the Renaissance by popularizing Aristotle. (I could go into why
reason and logic didn't outcompete other thinking methods, but that's another
post.) But all of their systems had holes in them which made it possible for
societies to be corrupt. Democracies are not free-they are run by tyrrany of the
majority. And all economies that have existed were only mixed-economies-not
completely capitalist.
Anyway, the point is that these were honest disagreements, unlike most of the
posts I see here. Another example of such an honest disagreement is Kenneth
Boyd's insistance that the subjective experience comes before the objective.
This is not true-we first assert "It is" and then "I am aware of it" and,
furthermore, there is evidence that the act of self-reference must be proceeded
by identifying things "out there". (Another discussion)
Most of the posts that attack me do not attack what I am communicating or
trying to communicate. They are simply dishonest methods of creating confusion
and uncertainty. As I said before, they attack the memes that are contained in
what I am saying, not what I am actually saying. The people who do this are
dishonest-they are deliberately trying to confuse and distort reality for others
while gaining a cheap feeling of power. Examples of this can be shown by such
people as Martz and Dave Pape.
In a recent post in which I said that there are 2 camps (2 methods of
thinking) going on in CoV and then used the meme at the end of the long post,
"This is War!", Martz responds, with another meme, "I'm a conscientous
objector". This is an example of attacking a meme, not what I am saying.
Yesterday, when I made the point that some people in this group are viruses
by not taking their own position, just attacking parasitically the memes of
others, Dave Pape responds that he's not a virus, but a host since he's a host
for various memes. In this context, he is a dishonest virus. Examples of
attacking fragments or memes of ideas are so common throughout this list, that
pointing them out would be like pointing out water in the Pacific Ocean.
Just as in society, dishonest criminals are dependent on leeching off honest
working people, dishonest "memebers" depend on other people providing ideas and
making assertions. Becoming dependent on attacking memes prevents people from
thinking original thoughts since they must rely on the minds of others.
I expect the next response to be along the lines that my thoughts aren't
original. -David