Tad wrote:
>A Level-3 Scientist, David R. wrote:
>>>Tad--a few months ago we advocated Objectivism and fought against what
>we
>>>>perceived to be "evil on the internet". But I don't see it that way
>>>>anymore.
>
>>>There is nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but I don't see your
new
>>>way of looking at the problem.
>
>>What problem?
>The "evil on the internet", the one you "don't see that way anymore".
Let's assume that there is some kind of "evil on the internet" going on
here, like Richard being the Jim Jones of memetics, with his imaginary
Level 3 that people should attain. What is the role of others--ie.
Prof.Tim, David McF. etc.? Do they play an active role in Richard's
operation or are they innocent bystanders?
>>> Would you help me at least by answering my
>>question about defining Objectivists and Success.
>
>>First of all, I think classifying individuals as "Objectivists" can be
>>limiting,
>I agree 100%. Why do you insist on doing it then?
In the context I called people Objectivists, I meant people who make
assumptions about the identity of things based on the notion that A is A.
For instance, are cartoons more real than the news, Tad?
>>How about if you post some samples of Level-3 manipulation from earlier
in
>>the year and I can compare how they appeared to me back then and how they
>>look to me now.
>>That's probably the best way to "show" you, since it would
>>probably look silly
>I know you don't want to look silly, that's another symptom of social
>metaphysics.
It seems like you're trying to rationalize my Level 3 claim as a result of
lack of independent thinking or some sort of "group think".
What I meant by "look silly" is that if I described an experience, which
you might not relate to, it would seem silly.
>>if I described an experience by saying, "First I got
>>the *sense* that Objectivism was just one of these closed and arbitrary
>>idea systems not much different from say, Islam, and then I 'flipped
over'
>>into a different mentality which I like a lot better."
>Great idea. It may also be an interesting example of meme experiments we
in
>fact DO here
Can you give an example of a meme experiment "we" do here..
> I found my post of February 21 where I described the Level-3
>scam to Tony.
Tony didn't agree with you about Level-3 being a scam. What, if anythng
could be improved about your description so that the next person doesn't
fall for the scam?
> As I recently wrote to Tim about the "unknown", I think
>Level-3 can be an interesting concept (similar to Maslow's
>selfactualization). It is the "you are not able to grasp it" part which
>makes it a scam.
>From an "objectivist" view, "you are not able to grasp it" means you have
"shit for brains", similar to a religious figure implying he has access to
higher powers--not a very respectful view of your consciousness.
But, I think what Richard means is that simply reading about Level 3 is not
the same thing as participating in an activity which gets the mind out of a
"Level 2" mode. It's similar to the way knowledge and skill are 2 different
things. Knowledge has to do with absorbing information, but skill takes
practice. Just as knowledge and skill have different effects on the brain,
I would guess that there is something happening in a Level 3 mind
>I can't wait for your new Level-3 scientific interpretation. Here is the
post:
>Tony Hindle wrote:
> Please explain what is level 3 (and its context). Also
>the meaning of the term "flexing memespace on the fly".
>Thanks for asking. This list was impregnated with the Level-3 meme on May
>24, 1996 by Richard Brodie, author of the book "Virus of the Mind" with
the
>following historical post:
>Tad wrote:
>>In "Virus of the Mind" you describe an incident when Jim Jones said
>>something like this: "trust me, just disinfect yourself and you will
>>find the answer".
>> I hope this is not
>>your intension to kill my honest beliefs just because it is your advice.
>I LIVE to kill people's beliefs! I want to get you out of Level 2!
>From a standpoint you don't want me to label as objectivist, it looks like
Richard might be implying that your consciousness is not valid since
people's beliefs, even if honest, should be killed. From a Level 3
standpoint, even honest people have useles and/or limiting belief systems
which they don't understand are just arbitary models.
>>Suppose I am ready to inject the anti Absolute Truth meme into my
>>veins, so I can faithfully join your "we need to use all the tricks in
>>the book to spread the memetics metameme" crusade, although
>>I prefer -- and I call it "conscious life" -- to understand rather than
>>blindly follow the leader. This is why I asked you what YOU meant
>>by the above slogan about "principled life". Would you mind
>>a sincere answer? (yes, I know you wrote two books).
>You have a Level-2 definition of "conscious", which is more like depth
>of understanding. It has nothing to do with Level-3 consciousness, which
is
>being at cause in your life.
>From the Level 2 (ie. objectivist)view, there's nothing more than
intellectual understanding.
>From a "Level 3" view, if you play "detached observer" and try to
understand something from within the assumptions you already make, you
might miss something. I think that things like Zen and Level 3, you have
to experience (believe them first). Then again how do you tell the
difference between someone who has something real to offer and someone who
is fake if no evidence gets presented to prove the existence of say,
another state of consciousness?. But, if the one claiming to know
something has a more consistent system or view than you do, maybe you're
the one who's missing something. It could be that your paradigm is
deficient.. When I advocated objectivism, I thought I knew that zen koans
like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" were contradictions but
after having an experience of perceiving such koans differently, I see they
are not necessarily contradictions. When calling them contradictions, I
used a paradigm which did not account for everything.
>>>How does it relate to "It's good to live consciously" meme?
>>>Isn't living consciously striving for a better approximation
>>>of objective reality (both in physical and social life)?
>>
>>I'll just say a flat out "no" to that question. Again my thoughts on
>>conscious living are discussed in detail in my two books.
Again, from an objectivist view, (I think it's the best word to use, here)
it looks like he means you should not care about understanding reality.
But, I think his view might be that if there are an infinite # of ways to
see an infinite reality, how can you get a better approximation of it? In
other words you can't know reality but you can do useful things anyway.
The rest of this is the same type of difference in opinion, as above.
--David R.
>Level-3 FAQ:
>Q: What is Level-3?
>A: Read my book.
>Q: I have. Can you explain what you mean?
>A: Sorry, you are not able to understand it, because you are on level-2
(do
>you feel the tingling? See...). Come to my workshop.
>Q: Can you prove existence of Level-3?
>A: No, you have to believe it first.
>Q: Do *you* believe it?
>A: Me?! Man, this is crap! Of course I don't believe it!
>Q: Are you a parasite?
>A: Of course not. I only earn $9.98 a month (nobody comes to my workshops
>anymore). Do not accuse me of doing it for money.
>I do it as my life's purpose.
>Q: What is you life's purpose?
>A: You are not able to understand it unless you are on Level-3.
>Go to question one -- or get out of this list! This is my Church and
those
>level-1 chimps are MINE!
>To which Richard fell on the floor rolling and laughing (ROFL).
>Then he came with his most brilliant definition of Level-3
>(I'm not making this up!):