Re: virus: Level 3 dichotomy

Mon, 04 Nov 1996 22:00:19 -0800

Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> KMO was kind enough to put some words in my mouth:
> >Many of them were written by Tad Niwinski, who thinks that this level 3
> >stuff is such irredeemable crap that he's working to get "Virus of the
> >Mind" translated into Polish.

That statement was meant to be ironic. It would be absurd to think that
you were having the book translated BECAUSE you thought it was crap. My
sentence was meant to convey to Mr. Leeper that he may not have as many
players in his camp as he thinks he does; not that Homo Deus needs the
backing of a solid majority.

> Kevin, thank you for another excellent example of "possibly conflicting
> ways" to be used to "map objective reality".

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate with that

> In his book "Virus of the Mind" Richard describes "Level-3", which (in one
> of his posts) he admitted to be related to Maslow's self-actualization
> (though he never mentioned how). The concept is great! I am vitally
> interested in learning more about it! (When you stop pretending you
> didn't know that, I want your apology for saying I thought it was a crap).

Again, I wasn't claiming that you thought the whole level three concept
was crap. It boggles me that you didn't catch the intended irony. Your
approach to this forum is pretty abbrassive. I find it strange that you
would take offense and demand indemnification when someone follows your
lead with respect to the tone of their posts. I guess I should revert
to my default mode and lay off the irony.

> (2) The second issue is the "crap" itself. Rather then learning more
> about "the jump" and sharing our experiences, the dominating theme here
> has been that level-3 cannot be understood by "lower" kinds of people.

I've done my best to explain the concept as I understand it. If I
thought that the people reading my posts were incapable of understanding
them, I wouldn't have expended the effort.

> Richard introduced it with lots of vagueness, ridicule, even accusations,
> for example when he was accusing you of insulting him (do you think it was
> insulting?):

Surely you aren't holding me responsible for the candor of Richard's

> The chimp analogy is also interesting because one does not have to ask
> chimps for their permission to perform experiments on them. A person who
> considers you a "lower level" may... (no, it would be unethical, would
> it?)

The chimp analogy is Richard's; not mine. I wouldn't present a rational
argument to a chimp, and the fact that I continue to try to communicate
my position with the use of rational argument should indicate that I
don't think of anyone on this list as being at chimp-level with respect
to their capabilities for assimilating rational discourse.

> MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY, as described in "Virus of the Mind" is a very
> interesting subject. When I touched it -- it was quickly ridiculed by
> both Kevin and Richard. I still hope to get to it.

If you took my response to your MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY post as ridicule,
then again I'm boggled. Please have a second look at it and believe
that it was written with nothing but respect for you and for the
intended readers. Really, here's the URL for that post. Take a look at
it and tell me which statements you interpretted as ridicule.

> There was one reoccurring theme that the truth is not important. It is
> hard to judge without further honest discussion what Richard really means
> by it, but I have an impression that this is something quite dangerous.
> I would like to find out more about it. Richard is not cooperating:

Again, I'm not responsible for Richard's posts.

> Thank you Kevin for prompting me to think about it,
> and please do not put ANYTHING in my mouth.

I won't promise not to make referrence to your posts or that I won't
articulate what I take your position on a given topic to be. If I
misrepresent that position, then, by all means, post the necessary
corrections and clarifications without delay.

About that apology; I don't feel that it's warrented. If I've
misrepresented your position, then I will accept correction with due
humility and gratitude. If the tone of my post offended you, then you
need to think about what contribution your own posts have had on the
tone of the exchange. Contributors to the list who have read my posts
from the time I entered this on-going discussion should be able to
attest to the fact that acerbic exchanges and put downs are not my
preffered style of interaction.

Take care. -KMO