Re: virus: Re: The Battle Continues

David Rosdeitcher (
18 Feb 97 01:07:34 EST

Dave Pape wrote:
>Why can't I get through to you? Our minds are not CONTROLLED BY memes! They
It sounds to me like you are saying that memes (or interaction of memes) are
the cause of our minds. It's like memes are the cause, our minds are the effect.
I suppose that's different than memes controlling our minds like after a match
strikes a surface and causes a fire, the match doesn't control the fire.

>Don't you yourself look to "higher authorities" on objectivism and neo-Tech
>for YOUR guidance? Looking to experts for guidance is a pandemic human
>strategy, and I reckon you do it as much as me, or any of the other Virus
>list-mem(e)bers. Give me evidence that you don't look to people you perceive
>as authorities or experts in your reply, please!
While I might pay attention to what objectivists or Neo-Techers say, I do not
look to them as higher authorities. I do my best to figure out reality directly.
Evidence? I was at an objectivist conference a year ago in which I got into a
heated debate with a group of objectivists when I claimed, based on my own
reasoning, that Ayn Rand was wrong about a few things (which I think she was).
Also, last year, on a mailing list like this one but for Neo-Techers, I figured
out on my own that a certain Neo-Tech idea was not technically correct and then
I brought up this point on the mailing list, (starting a flame war) with the
other NTer's. It turned out that the author of Neo-Tech admitted his error and
made corrections in his later publications. Also, when the OJ trial was going
on, from my perspective, based on what I saw, OJ was an innocent man, being
screwed by the State. But various Objectivist and Neo-Tech "authorities" whom I
respected claimed he was guilty.

>1 I think that most people in Europe, America, and Australasia DO
"support a purported
>higher authority such as big government to take care of them". Don't they?
>Prove conclusively to me that the populations of the USA, Britain, Australia
>and France (eg) DON't support big governments to take care of them, or prove
>that those countries are police states (Hint: this is probably easier)... or
>take back your point.
I agree with you. People everywhere have a tendency to look toward government
for help (which doesn't work).

> So, whether or not people believe in
>freewill, the processes deciding whether or not a police state arises are
>the same:
>Saying that people have to subscribe to one of these philosophies or the
>other, to me (feeling how I do about how human brains work), seems stupid.

Because I have accepted the axiom of consciousness, various conclusions follow,
such as the existence of free-will, an integrated system of ideas which connect
seemingly unrelated subjects such as free-will to politics, and that there is
only one other type of integrated system of ideas (although most people have a
mixture of the 2). You have not accepted the axiom of consciousness (possibly
since it hasn't been explained to you) so no such extrapolations would follow.