Re: virus: Level Three-Belief and Utility.
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:24:06 -0600 (CST)

On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Jason McVean wrote:

> Ken Pantheists wrote:
> > I have been very busy over the past couple of days and have tried too
> > keep up with the mammoth that has bedome the Level 3- bashing/defending
> > thread.
> I hope I'm making more of an impact than bashing level-3. If I'm
> bashing anything, it's our lack of information about level-3.
> Perhaps if some more useful information were supplied, we would
> all be in a better position to judge it. Is it so complicated
> that the only way the information can ever be imparted is through
> the reading of "Virus of the Mind"? That seems unlikely to me.
> Even Zen masters are more helpful to their students than the
> ever growing number of level-3ers on this list are :-)

Oh no. I acquired my emulation/reality of level-3 by a much more brutal
process: putting myself in a situation where level-2 methods were
completely destroyed in functionality, and having to find a more
effective method of making daily decisions.

Imagine finding out that you know NOTHING about "study skills", that
even a rank freshman in engineering knows more about it than you do--and you
have a month to go before finals in your first semester of graduate
school. All of my former level-2 methods crashed within 5 seconds, and
refused to function again. Ever, at least through now. Compared to the
things I had to learn, they just give obviously incorrect answers.

Reading "Virus of the Mind" should be fairly tame, in comparison. That
may be why Brodie also recommends immersion seminars.

I don't like trying to answer questions that I'm not certain I'm
qualified to answer. In this case, I'm not familar enough with the
terminology to clearly identify whether I use an emulation of level-3, or
the real thing. Richard Brodie's initial explanation was very explicit
and intelligible as to how it works, but not what processes allow its
usage as default reasoning. Then again, he has this book to sell....

> Lot's of people claim god exists and they use strange arguments
> based on thought processes I can emulate if I choose. They also
> claim that their belief makes them happier and that it makes it
> easy for them to see how to structure their lives. But that
> just isn't satisfying to the many atheists on the list, among
> whom I'd count myself. That doesn't mean their wrong. It's just
> failure to supply a compelling argument for the existence of god.
> That is, compelling to those who aren't already believers.

The reason the above two excuses you cited do not satisfy is they are NOT
reasons. As I find religion to be highly worldly and autotoxic, I
am out to excise it from my memes as fast as I can detect it. Note:
I am using "religion" in a technical sense, and that there are
subcultures of Christianity that vehemently deny that they are religious.

The most compelling evidence is direct observation. In this case, there
is a major verifiability problem. Those who DO observe are convinced,
and those who do NOT observe go agnostic or atheist. Judging from the
lack of a consensus religious reality, and the lack of application of
science on even an individual scale to this, it is time to bring science
to bear on the religious/spiritual domain.

Even an agnostic/atheist might seriously wonder if there is an active
"Spiritual Disinformation department" [obviously, does not have a
physical implementation!]; if so, whichever organization this department
works for should be treated as highly dangerous to the human species,
since this department seems to try to work over every culture on Earth.

The above idea is unpopular in many New Age circles.


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