Re: virus: Re: level 2 / 3

David Leeper (
Wed, 28 Aug 1996 01:48:58 +0000

Ken Pantheists,

I've included an up-to-date version of the table:

| Table Of Level 3 Falacies, Contradictions & Useless Definitions |
| Version 1.1 |
| Works best with fixed-width font. |
| Definition | Status | Reason |
| Level 3 causes | Debunked | Replicators do not become |
| Replicators to | | stuck. |
| Become "Unstuck". | | |
| Level 3 Asks "Is | Useless | We are able to use two con- |
| This Useful?" | | tradictory systems: Logic |
| | | and Social. Everyone must |
| | | ask "Is this useful" in |
| | | order to think. |
| Level 3 a synonym | Contradiction | Contradicts other synonyms. |
| for "Extreme select-| | |
| ive pressure of | | |
| memes". | | |
| Level 3 a synonym | Contradiction | Contradicts other synonyms. |
| for "Postmodern" | | |
| thought. | | |
| Level 3 a synonym | Contradiction | Contradicts other synonyms. |
| for "Having a | | |
| Purpose." | | |

Allow me to begin with saying that I have nothing against calling
something "Level 3". I do object to defining something with hazy
or invalid definitions, asking money for it, and refering to those
who disagree as "Chimps".

> Can you describe in greater detail what you mean in the second row of
> the Table.

>From a previous posting:

Social Reasoning accepts the types of arguments that Logic rejects.
Examples: Personal attacks, appeals to power or charisma, democracy.

Social Reasoning rejects the types of arguments that Logic accepts.
Example: Logic, math, et. al. seen as boring, deceptive and out of
touch with one's day to day life.

If I may be so bold, I'd say the "goal" of Logical Reasoning is Truth,
the "goal" of Social Reasoning is Love.

> I also do not understand why you have labelled things a contradiction.

Because, IMHO, they contradict one another.

> If I use a spoon to eat, and use a spoon to dig dirt, am I hypocrit?

No. Are you saying that the so-called "Level 3" is a union of the last
3 rows on the table? If this is so, how do you reconcile the often
nihilist "Post-Modern Thought" with "Having a Purpose"? Or, on the
otherhand, is the so-called "Level 3" like Hinduism, possessing a
definition so broad that it is bound to contain some truth?

> If I continue to call it a spoon and instead of a small shovel am I
> contradicting myself?

No. But if you present some term and say "It's a dog", then later you
say "It's a rock" and then later say "It's a mathematical formula" you
_are_ contradicting yourself. This is the situation the so-called
"Level 3" finds itself in.

> You probably already know about the many tables that define the circles
> of heaven, the circles of hell, the ranks of angels and demons.

Yes. One such book is "777" by Aliester Crowley. Here's a quote from
that book, where Mr. C. describes 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" (particularly the second row of the
above table).

"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)

As I write this, the following is spoken by an old woman on the

"Right now, you're just browsing through time. Pick the things
you'll be proud of, the things that will last."

David Leeper
Homo Deus  
1 + 1 != 2