virus: Re: Is Objectivism a Meme?

Wright, James 7929 (
Mon, 03 Mar 97 23:12:00 EST

Reed[] wrote:

>I would first like to note that this post was, on the whole, civil. I
>appreciate that.

And I as well. David is charming when he wishes to be.

>Such a state [nirvana]may exist. I have not experienced it, but to
limit ones
>conception to what one currently imagines possible is not effective.
>are disabling your ability to perceive.

I can agree with both of these assertions.


>Also clear. I disagree. Buddhism uses the same words but does not come
>the same conclusions. Buddhists, especially in Zen, are very insistent
>coming to grips with "reality" and in knowing the "facts" of existence.
>Centuries of philosophy have brought them to an extremely complicated
>subtle understanding of the way in which things have their own identity,
>what the nature of this identity is, etc.

I have read a little in Zen, and I have barely begun to understand.

>This is a single philosophy. You assert that Objectivism is basic. I
>disagree. Richard asserts that Level 3 is basic. I disagree with this
>also. The thing is, Richard can see things from my perspective. He
>at himself. He thinks, "ha, ha...I think I know what is going
>an obvious delusion..." Richard can disagree with himself.

I am not sure that "basic" is a useful concept. Can you define this word?

>You cannot disagree with yourself. You cannot look from outside your
>ideology at yourself. As a result you are taking this all WAY TOO
>SERIOUSLY. I'm not speaking from any position of superiority, and
>(in his moments of lucidity) isn't either. We are all susceptible to
>ideological certainty.

Reed, you appear to accept paradox and contradiction. I appreciate your
and agree with the definition of another toxic meme: ideological
certainty, defined
(perhaps) as confident possession of ultimate truth in any area.

>You are arguing that Objectivism is only way to build "right-thinking"
>that memetics is a useful tool. Richard is (kind of) arguing that
>is "right-thinking" and than objectivism and memetics are both useful
>tools. Is this an argument over primacy? "In the beginning there was

I'm glad you put the [(kind of)] in there;

>In the beginning there was nothingness. All consciousness is
>from that basis. This is what I believe. But from your perspective I
>already "wrong-thinking" for disagreeing with you.

The Void is not empty, it is filled with potential, and permeates all. Is
that close?
We should not turn CoV into a Zen Buddhist sect, however; there are
enough of
those already.

>Can't you see me out here?

Who is it that sees? Can you show him to me? <VBG!>


Reed Konsler