virus: Re: Meme-Space Flexing, Lesson #3

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Tue, 04 Mar 1997 12:45:57 -0800

James Wright wrote:
>Somewhere else someone encouraged me to stop asking silly questions.
>There are no silly questions,
>but I've heard some humdinger ANSWERS lately!

James, my apologies. I meant it as irony. Your question was very good, but
after 9 months of "meme-flexing" from Richard I thought it was impossible to
get some honest explanation of what he really thinks. Well, your question
actually did a good job, we have a new "definition" of Level-3:

>Deliberately put yourself in uncomfortable situations in which nothing
>you've learned your whole life helps you. (Note: this should not be
>construed as an endorsement for marriage!)

>>Of course, the truth *must be* somewhere in the middle.
>Must it? How can you define the "middle" of a daily-expanding meme-space?

James, again, it was irony (Richard hates when others use the word "truth").
What I meant with this example in Lesson #3 was that comparing two "labels"
(ie. Objectivism and "meme-space flexing") may easily lead to a conclusion
that the truth is somewhere in the middle. As with my previous Lesson #2,
"95% Virgin", I believe one is either a Virgin or not, there is nothing in

>What if we
>haven't hit anywhere near the truth here, or even in our dreams?

What do you mean, James? Do you suggest that we are incapable of learning
the reality and finding the truth? That's the heart of our battle. Here
come the three axioms. I'm sure we do not understand many things around us
(memes being a good example). The axioms do not say we do. The axioms do
not divide people into two groups: those who can learn reality and those who
can't. The religion of Level-3 *is* dividing people into groups (as any
cult would): "Level-2ers" are not capable of understanding "Level-3ers".

The axioms state that there is one reality, which we are conscious of, and
capable of learning. Do you think it makes sense?

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159