>At 10:06 AM 05/03/97 -0800, Richard Brodie wrote:
>>The distinction I think is important is that our abstractions DESCRIBE
>>reality in an approximate way, rather than that reality OBEYS certain
>>laws.
>
>I see your point and agree. Now what is the best way to handle someone
>who asserts that there are laws of the universe? Do you show them the
>errors of their beliefs or do you transparently substitute "good
>tricks"
>whenever they say "laws"?
Given who you are, I just went for the high-bandwidth straightforward
approach. But most people have layer upon layer of defenses programmed
in to keep them from expanding their consciousness. For most people, I
wouldn't even bring it up.
I spend a lot of time with sports officials. I used to be incredibly
frustrated because every time we'd talk about a situation, like a hard
foul under the basket in the last two minutes, I'd want to make
abstractions and start talking about concepts and rules. They would get
glassy-eyed and talk about another situation or change the subject. It
was very unsatisfying.
Then I learned to move myself more into their space. This was a MAJOR
BREAKTHROUGH for me, and in general for dealing with M-B Sensates.
That's why my next book is a novel rather than more nonfiction. But I
truly treasure this list where we can talk at a very high level (not to
be confused with Level ;-) about memetics, reality, neo-smurfing, and
the rest.
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
>