virus: Meme-flexing #3

Reed Konsler (
Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:20:39 -0500 (EST)

>From: Tadeusz Niwinski <>
>Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 16:30:55 -0800

>No, I don't think O. and M-S-F lie on a continuum. I meant that comparing
>them that way may lead to a wrong conclusion that "the truth in the middle".
>We were discussing O. and M-S-F and they should be judged independently.

Acceptable. But do you agree with David R. that all facets of reality can
only properly be understood from the perspective of the 3-axioms of
objectivism. 3-pillars of Wisdom, 3-fold path, level-3, 3 axioms...sounds
similar to me.

>This is the secret David R. is trying to explain. There is no mystery,
>there is one reality, we are conscious of, and capable of learning. Mystery
>is used by con-artists to fool people. Here is what Ayn Rand said about it:
>"Problem. This one is especially pernicious and effective at lassoing in
>smart, educated people. The idea that there is a mysterious body of
>knowledge that can be attained through a lifetime of problem-solving is a
>powerful lure. This is the cornerstone of such Eastern religions as Zen and
>Taoism, although adherents would probably tell you it isn't. (That's what
>makes it so mysterious!) Religions such as Christianity have so much
>written about them that you could never make a dent in it in a single
>lifetime. But for many Christians, religious study is a great part of their
>lifestyle. They pore over the Bible, believing it is the direct word of
>God, bringing enlightenment if they could just understand a little more."

That's from "Viruses of the Mind"'re quoting Brodie.

>The result is dividing people into "believers" and "non-believers",
>"Level-2ers" and "Level-3ers". Dividing people -- not studying ideas. How
>can an idea be studied if the monks are masturbating with it?

I don't think I understand the difference between studying an idea an
masturbating with it. The metaphor is memorable...unfortunately you don't
communicate much substative
information with it. What do you propose we do differently? Frankly, over
the past
year I've come to the conclusion that you get off attacking other people's
ideas, laughing
at them and then watching them squirm...a sort of social/pychic
who on this list is doing the "masturbating" (ie: seeking
self-gratification)? I don't mean
that as a personal attack, I would just rather you made you underlying
more obvious rather than using this list as a kind of debating experiment.

Do you reallize you could bring up the same issues, make the same points,
etc. in a much
less hostile way? Nobody on this list in resisting constructive criticism
(my impression).
We don't need object-lessons or faux-classes. Speak your truth plainly and
it will be heard.

Agreed with? Doubtful...but don't condecend. Nobody agrees with anything
on this list...
that is it's charm. I just think these biting-sarcasm wars aren't getting
us anywhere. All
we do is balkanize, throw up mind-shields, and intentionally misinterpret
one another.

But I guess from your perspecive many of us are unbelievingly fucking
naieve and innocent, aren't we? That is what makes us such a danger to
ourselves and to you, huh?

Don't condecend.

>The reason I invest so much time in this list is that I want to learn how to
>tell a real mute from a fake one. It seems to be more difficult than I
>thought: the mutes attract a lot of honest and not-so-honest people who make
>this process so much more difficult. I am glad David is making some of the
>ideas clearer for us.

But it seems like you enjoy muddying the waters yourself. Do you see a
purpose in this?
Can you explain it to me?


Reed Konsler