RE: virus: C of V: Another Religion

Dan Plante (
Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:31:02 -0800

At 03:39 PM 1/31/97 -0800, Richard Brodie wrote:
>This is my first encounter with an Objectivist.

It's your second, at least (that is, if we share functionally
identical "definition of Objectivist" memes). As far as the
contents of this thread are concerned, I agree with David.

>I'm curious, David: how
>did you come to acquire this set of beliefs? Books? Seminars? Over what
>period of time? Were and of the techniques described in my chapter "How
>We Get programmed" used?
>David Rosdeitcher wrote:
>>Similarly, Richard B dismissed
>>'existence' as a 'meme distinction' while making an implicit claim
>>"there's a situation out there where someone is treating 'distinction
>>like it's not just an invention of the mind".
>Giving this remark a VERY generous reading, I'm interpreting you to say
>that my simply making an assertion about the way things are implicitly
>lends credence to your particular definition "existence." If this is a
>correct interpretation, do you now see the fallacy in that line of
>thought? (By the way, Virions, this is an excellent example of a Level
>2/Level 3 mismatch.) [Ducking from Tad's missile attack]

I'm not sure whether to take this seriously or not. If not, all I can
think of is that we're the giunea pigs in some heinous memetics
experiment, in which case: Hey, good one. You got me!

If so, then all I can think of to say is; the fact that you can have a
thought and post it, means that you exist. If you didn't exist, you
(quite obviously, which is the real point here) would not be able to.
The distinction between these two scenarios should be enough to drive
home the concept of "existence". Any individual's ideas about
any particular /quality/ of existence, or the /nature/ of it, is surely
/not/ the point. Asserting that there are different definitionss of the
concept of existence is also asserting that there are more fundamental
concepts that can be used to define it. An oxymoron. I've had
conversations like this before, and without exception, they degenerate
into a mass of non sequiteurs and simple refutation. If nothing else,
one surely must acknowledge that refuting the simple concept of
existence is mental masturbation - it gets you nowhere. If you hear
one starting, run away and /really/ masturbate instead. It's more fun.

Dan (Looking forward to some constructive idea-bashing) Plante

The Metasystem Transition History of the "Dan Plante" System

initial conditions = data (conception)
control of data = information (conception to puberty)
control of information = knowledge (puberty to marriage)
control of knowledge = wisdom (marriage to divorce)