Also, I always get the impression that, after a rebuttal to one of your
posts, you go off and confer with the Neo-Tech Central Committee or
whatever and get fed the ammunition for the next salvo. Is this true?
David Rotweiller wrote:
> 1) How con-artists rip people off by inverting objectivist axioms
When I read this, I thought you had wised up about Neo-Tech!
> 2) How religion-oriented memetics leads to a Nazi police state.
Oh-oh -- do a Web search for Godwin's Law.
> 3) Is CoV an organized scam or simply a group of individuals
>interested in
>memetics?
This is an interesting topic, except that the LACK of organization in
CoV is fairly obvious to everyone but you.
>4)Why Brodie and his victim/supporters are getting their asses kicked
>in
>cyberspace.
I have victim/supporters? Cool! Hey guys, send me money and virgins!
>
> The objectivist axioms-existence, consciousness, and identity-are
>concepts
>that are self-evident in all conscious statements or actions. They are
>implicit
>in all knowledge and need no proof or definition.
You should use more than one hyphen---like this -- or this---for a dash.
Otherwise it looks like you're making up a compound word like
"axioms-existence." And wouldn't you think that something "implicit in
all knowledge" would be self-evident to at least SOME people who haven't
been brainwashed by Rand or Neo-Tech?
> Certain con-artists can rip
>people off by inverting these axioms either explicitly or implicitly.
And other con-artists can rip people off WITHOUT inverting them,
whatever that means.
>By
>understanding the axioms and how frauds are perpetrated by people who
>invert
>them, one can prevent axiom-inverting con-artists from getting away
>with fraud.
>(For an explanation of why these axioms are valid and why a situation
>where
>"scientists someday find there is no free will" can't happen, read
>Leonard
>Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".)
I'll get right to that if I ever meet anyone who follows Rand's
philosophy who seems like they're getting more out of life than I am.
That's when you should look at reprogramming your mind: when people you
admire have different positions from you.
>
> An example of inverting an axiom is shown by people who treat
>memetics as a
>religion.
I don't know anyone who fits that description, but if you find them,
have them send me...
> Free will, a corollary of the 2nd axiom-consciousness, is treated as
>non-existent in religion-based memetics.
Translation: the memetics paradigm renders the distinction-meme "free
will" useless. Since it's one of the cornerstones of your philosophy
(memetic model), you must make up some reason that memetics is "wrong."
Calling it a religion is one way, in your mind at least.
> An idea behind religion-based memetics
>is that our thoughts are not in our control since thoughts are just an
>interaction of memes which compete with each other for survival.
Just the opposite. I think the more you understand memetics, the more
you're in control of your thoughts. It's the unconscious people who are
meme slaves. Level 1's the most, then level 2's. Level 3ers are much
more in control of their memes.
> Supposedly,
>according to such religious memetics, one reaches a higher level on the
>evolutionary scale through an ongoing process of memes competing with
>one
>another for space in one's ideosphere.
No. One increases one's level of consciousness as they grow. I THINK
that certain exercises, like holding dissonant ideas, helps.
>The idea that our minds are controlled by
>outside entities, leads to confusion and frustration from not trusting
>one's own
>throught process.Someone infected with these ideas is likely look
>toward a
>"higher authority" for guidance. If such a mentality spreads throughout
>society,
>then many people would support a purported higher authority such as big
>government to take care of them. The result, therefore, would be police
>state
>dynamics such as those of Nazi Germany.
Quite a leap, David. I've found that increased consciousness leads to
LESS confusion and frustration. And the "higher authority" drive is
hardwired.
> To see how this works, it is important to understand that there
>are 2 and
>ONLY 2 philosophical systems of thought: Platonistic and Aristotelian.
You lost me here. Why on earth would you assert there are only two?
>Platonistic ideologies are characterized by
>1. Existence of "higher realities" to the one we observe,
>2. Inability to understand those realities with our minds and senses
>3. Sacrificing oneself to a "higher cause".
>4. Political structure in which the State controls individuals through
>deception
>and force.
>Aristotelian ideologies are characterized by:
>1. Existence of only one reality.
>2. Ability of the mind to figure out reality.
>3. Good action benefits individuals, which are not subordinate to a
>"higher
>cause".
>4. Political structures should allow people freedom of thought and
>action.
OK, here's Brodieism:
1. Unknowability, but presumption, of reality.
2. Impossibility of mapping that reality with arbitrary precision
(conflict of precision and generalization).
3. Living life on purpose, a purpose chosen wisely by the individual.
4. Political structures are self-perpetuating cultural organisms and
should be watched at the best, demolished at the worst.
> The religion-based memetic ideas are Platonistic notions. For
>instance, "More
>evolved memes that your mind may possess in the future" is the same as
>Plato's
>"higher realities".
Uh...no. Would you consider "you will be able to speak French better in
the future" Platonic?
> And, "your thoughts are based on memes which are only
>constructs of language and have nothing to do with reality" is the same
>as
>Plato's "your mind is impotent to know true reality".
I agree with your quote attributed to Plato, but no one here says your
memes have NOTHING to do with reality, only that they are imperfect
descriptions, many of which are possible.
> These notions, if taken
>to their conclusion, become woven into an integrated philosophical
>system that
>encompasses all subject matter including politics. Such a system, if
>accepted by
>enough people, can be used by a handful of dishonest people to
>manipulate and
>control the masses.
Red herring. This could apply to any philosophy. And I doubt memetics
will ever become a "mass movement." You have to be too smart to get it.
> CoV is NOT such an intentional political scam. In fact, most
>people are
>here to discuss memetics and meet others who are like-minded. But, most
>people,
>in general have tendencies to follow "higher authorities" and accept
>Platonistic ideas.
Odd statement. Very few people ever talk to me about Plato. In fact, I
would venture to say I've heard more about Plato from you in the last
few weeks than I have from all other sources combined in the past 10
years.
> And, within the human population there is a small percentage
>which manipulates others through people's authority-accepting and
>Platonistic
>tendencies. So, just 1 or 2 people on an internet mailing list like
>CoV can
>create a major epidemic in which a diseased form of religious thinking
>spreads
>throughout society-unless it is contained.
Good crisis memes! However, if we ever create a "major epidemic" from
this ol' list I'll be more surprised than anyone.
> Here is how this is happening at CoV: At CoV, there is often a
>pattern in
>which someone starts a discussion by making an assertion (thesis) and
>that
>assertion is countered by someone else taking a meme out of context
>(antithesis)
>which causes the person making the assertion to become confused and
>have a
>"belief crisis".
Look, David, the only one having a belief crisis around here is YOU. And
you're having it because you've run into a rare group of clear thinkers
who are trying to disinfect you from the loaded language and
rational-labeled-irrationality of Neo-Tech.
> This activity, in which some people induce confusion in others,
>is very contagious as more and more people get "belief crises" and
>induce these
>belief crises in others.
Nonsense. You're just making this up.
> If someone stays with this activity for a while, one
>would get the hang of how it works and go off to start their own "CoV"
>as a
>"master virus" and the whole process can replicate as a growing mind
>virus
>spreads throughout the internet and beyond. The end result would be the
>popularization of a highly evolved Platonistic belief system with a
>memetics
>twist.
It's not quite that easy to start a religion, at least not one that
works the way you want it to. Ask L. Ron Hubbard.
> Certain people, such as Richard Brodie, are "master viruses" who
>understand that the first step toward infecting people is to push them
>off-balance by inverting objectivist axioms with claims such as:
> 1.It is good to hold contradictory beliefs (inversion of law of
>identity-3rd
>axiom)
>2. All your thoughts are only 'distinction memes' and do not pertain to
>reality
>(inversion of consciousness-2nd axiom)
I admit to ALL that, except that I never said distinction-memes don't
pertain to reality. I said the map is not the territory(TM).
> Another trick he uses is called 'Plato's Cave', in which a guru tells
>his
>disciples that just as people who are in a cave all their lives would
>not know
>of a sunlit world, you the disciple do not know of a higher
>reality,"Follow me
>to a higher level".
Yes, I do use that technique. However, it's accurate as well as
effective. You can't not use memetics techniques just because they're
effective or you'll leave them to the bad guys to use. Remember, there
is a good side as well as a dark side to the Force.
> Such contradictory notions, especially in the context of dialogue,
>induce
>"belief crises" that have an effect that is similar to a witch 'casting
>a
>spell'. The group of people who are under the master virus' spell can
>then be
>subtly influenced to give that master virus unearned money or power-and
>help the
>master virus get more money and power. For instance, the master virus,
>who has a
>following would have a tremendous advantage in projects such as
>multi-level
>marketing operations or political campaigns. Draw your own conclusions
>about
>what follows.
Very true. Applies to Neo-Tech more than CoV.
> Something to know about master viruses is that not everything they
>say is
>dishonest. For instance, Richard has a valid concept that whenever we
>talk or
>think about something, we are seeing the world in a limited way,
>confined by the
>constraints of language. This is good to know, since such use of
>language can
>become habitual and keep people stuck in a rut in which they cannot see
>things
>from a different perspective. However, this does not invalidate various
>concepts
>expressed through language such as the objectivist axioms. The use of
>language
>does not imply that all concepts are "just distinction memes" that
>distort
>reality.
Hey, that's just my model. You can use your own model with your damned
"axioms" which are self-evident to no one but your cult members. But
nyah, nyah, my model's better than your model!
> Ironically, Richard is making such reality-distorting distiction
>memes by
>classifying me as a "Neo-Tech cultist". Neo-Tech is not a cult, but a
>collection of concepts-some of which can be used to identify
>neocheaters such
>as, in this case, master-viruses. Richard, as well as other
>neocheaters around
>the world, are actually having belief crises, being faced with
>situations that
>are completely foreign to them. In fact, before the identification of
>neocheating became public knowledge just a few years ago, everyone,
>including
>Ayn Rand and her objectivist followers, was impotent to identify
>neocheaters and
>stop their neocheating.
Last time you asserted this I asked you to identify a list of
neocheaters whom you have successfully stopped in the last 20 years. If
you'll examine this, you'll see that neither you nor your cult leaders
can answer. Doesn't that belie the effectiveness of their techniques?
> The field of memetics is a study of ideas. A misunderstanding of
>ideas is
>what has produced the various police states since Plato.
A dangerous notion. The Nazis didn't misunderstand anything. They were
schooled in the Four Principles, which I never repeat, because anyone
who knows them can easily create a runaway movement. But no
misunderstanding is needed, just the right mix of memes.
> But now, with the
>understanding of how neocheaters invert the objectivist axioms to
>control
>hoardes of people, such a mistake has a much smaller chance of
>happening again.
Blah blah blah.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>