Re: virus: level 3 minds
Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:33:00 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Jason McVean wrote:

> Reading over what I have written below, I thought it sounded kind
> of sarcastic. I want to say that the intension is not to insult and that
> I tried to let the concepts concerning level-x minds sink in
> before reacting. Perhaps I'm lacking information, or perhaps I
> will never attain level-3. Whatever the case, here is my reaction:
> I've been trying to let the description of the level-x minds sink
> in before reacting as was suggested. One problem I'm having is
> that it seems that Brodie's definition of the level-3 mind is
> unassailable. Firstly, it is fairly vague. The gist of it seems
> to be that a level-3 mind chooses a goal and then pursues it
> single-mindedly, probably at the expense of other goals and beliefs:
> In Level 3, you pick a purpose for your life and hold it
> as your highest priority. If you commit strongly enough
> to this purpose, the cognitive dissonance created with
> old memes that don't support this purpose will result in
> some reprogramming.
> Setting the unsavory implications of this aside, it still isn't
> very clear how this is much different from plenty of motivational
> schemes offered by others. I'm assuming there is something more
> to it than that. [Is the jump between level-1 (instinctual,
> unreflective existance) to level-2 (learned introspective
> academic) on the same scale as the jump between level-2 and
> level-3?] So I'm left with a vague description of a
> level-3 mind and no real information on how to attain it.

I'm not familiar with the terminology, but I seem to function at a
first-order approximation to level-3 from level-2, or the real thing.
I allow for approximation because I did not see any definitive
diagnostics for IDing level-3, only diagnostics for IDing level-2. In
the absence of further information, I conclude that level-2 can emulate
level-3 to some degree.

The jump I took from level-2 to my current emulation/reality of level-3
was a lateral jump. It's not even in the same direction as the jump from
level-1 to level-2. I took the jump when I managed to completely break
level-2 as a method of living. [Actually, this was several months.]
In the absence of a functional method of deciding how to act, I learned to
use the motive-programming techniques that seem to be key to Brodie's
description of level-3.

I had to face those "unsavory implications" during the jump. They're part
of why most people don't like it--or consider it possible.

"commit strongly enough" is approximated by "only absolute
impossibility of means will force reconsideration." If you can consider
departing from said goal before then, you're not committed strongly
enough. This is weaker than "commit by blind faith", because the latter
will not reconsider even if no means exist. ["blind faith" is almost
certainly one of the most popular Luciferic PR items in even the church!]


> Either way, it seems that the truth is regarded as unimportant,
> the usefulness of a meme being preferred. In fact, it seems that
> to worry about the truth of a meme is fundamentally a level-2
> concern. If it's useful, use it. If it happens to also be true,
> great, but that's not really an issue. Truth may be correlated
> with usefulness, but I suppose usefulness does not have to be
> correlated with truth.

I don't worry about the truth of a mathematical model of
reality--modeling reality, by definition, has error at some level.
I'd worry about "when do the predictions become useless?" I'm
interpreting memes in a similar fashion. "I'm wearing math-colored

Useful false statements EVENTUALLY crash. It may take centuries....


/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd