Re: virus: RE: Is Objectivism a Meme? per Rosdeitcher (long)

Tony Hindle (
Mon, 3 Mar 1997 02:45:07 +0000

In message <>, "Wright, James
7929" <> writes
>On March 1 D. Rosdeitcher wrote a lengthy post on the subject, trying to
>answer questions from D. Hindle (I think) and in the process illuminating
>a lot of shadowy territory. I think I can understand why David has such
>difficulty with Richard. Someone else alluded to David accepting
>Objectivism as his "religion", giving examples of how accepting the Three
>Principles as valid leads to certain conclusions. I'm not sure I would
>characterize David's objectivism as a religion, however; I think it's
>closer to a "filter" from another poster's work, where information is
>viewed from within a frame of reference, and judged accordingly.
>I would have a question for David, however:
>as a child, I probably believed in both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny,
>because I was told of them by those I trusted and empirical results
>(presents and candy) flowed to reinforce the illusion. Now that I am
>older and must provide the presents and candy, I no longer believe (hold
>the illusion). I understand differently than I did as a child.
>Richard seems to be holding forth that there are understandings (Level 3
>and beyond?) which either exist independently or separately from the
>tenets of Objectivism. He seems to have no problem with Objectivism
>existing, although it's explanations of certain phenomena (propagation of
>memes) have gaps or inaccuracies in them from his point of view.
>My question for you, David, is : do you allow for the possibility of
>understandings that exist either independently or separately from
>Objectivism, that may have equal validity for describing objective
>reality? Or is Objectivism the only possible model / method / philosophy
>/ approach to validly perceive objective reality?

I hope you dont mind me atempting an answer to your
question as well(I am T. Hindle not Richard, this is all
confusing enough without pretending to be someone else).
I reckon your subjective (-thanks prof Tim) reality when
you were a child is one example of an understanding that exists
Independently or separately from objectivism (many children today
will have an aproximation of it). However it was not as valid
when describing objective reality as the one you have now, which
of course is less valid at describing objective reality than the
one you will have in ten years time.
Objective reality is out there folks, we just have to
keep talking to each other so we can all agree on what it is (get
our subjective realities to aproximate it better and better).
What's more I reckon Cov is a good forum for synchronising our
realities, the best I've come across.
In this context I reckon alt. christianity has reached
an evolutionary dead end (I cant imagine a mutation to save it,
interesting task though...any suggestions?)
Alt. Objectivism has an equally good chance as Cov (as I
understand objectivism so far) and alt. monte-python are making
it up as they go along (but at least they know it).
Thanks I had fun writing this.

Tony Hindle.
*Why all the hysteria about cloning, and when are they going to clone*
*something we want, like claudia Schiffa's tits *
*Oh and for the girls....Claudia's tits again I think.(suggestions) *