Re: virus: Level 3 dichotomy

David Leeper (
Tue, 28 Aug 1956 03:38:44 +0000


> 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.

1] The So-Called "Level 3" Sinks Under Its Own Weight:
I'm not sure who stands where, but the so-called "Level 3"
defeats itself. In this posting we discuss your definition.

2] Level 3 Asks "Is This Useful":
As for your statement that the so-called "Level 3" mind asks "In what
context is this model useful?" I would argue that this is far more
common than is perhaps believed.

Given that humans can use both social and logical systems and that
these systems are opposites, it seems impossible _not_ to
perform at what you call "Level 3". Every thought picks one system
and disregards the other. Every thought is a "Level 3" thought.

This definition reminds me of a quote by Aleister Crowley,
describing what it was like to be allowed into the "Inner Circle"
of the Golden Dawn. Perhaps you'll notice a parallel to the
so-called "Level 3":

"It is simply bad faith to swear a man to the most horrible
penalties if he betray ..., etc, and then take him mysteriously
apart and confide the Hebrew Alphabet to his safe keeping. This
is perhaps only ridiculous; but [...] to obtain money on these
grounds, as has been done by certain moderns, is clear (and I
trust, indictable) fraud." - A. Crowley, "777".

Sorry it took me so long to get around to your definition, but
I'm waist deep in "Level 3" nonsense and shoveling it all out
of the way takes time.

David Leeper
Homo Deus  
1 + 1 != 2