>Does objectivism claim to offer the ultimate truth or a better
>approximation?
I don't know anything about Objectivism.
>The subconscious (or conscious mind) can distort the relationships
>between
>perceptions, not the perceptions themselves. The Inuits thought in a
>way that
>picked out the genitals more easily than the Americans, but both saw
>the same
>ad. If different people took the archives of CoV and wrote a book,
>different
>people would single out different items which they thought to be most
>important.
>On this screen you can see the words as ideas, memetic patterns, or
>nonsense.
You are backing yourself into an EXTREMELY narrow definition of "sense."
You seem to think there is a sensory layer, the same in everyone, which
infallibly receives raw data about the world. It's only the next layer,
you seem to be saying, that starts sorting and distorting. Even if that
were a useful model, we have no access to that first layer except
through the sort-and-distort layer, which is affected by your meme-set.
>Within the context of people like me who've already been "brainwashed",
> the
>axioms should still be open to debate. Within the context of the other
>people
>who have not accepted such axioms, the axioms could still apply, just
>like
>people who don't know about memes could be affected by memes.
No one is "affected" by memes. There's no such thing as a meme. Meme is
an abstraction used to approximate a phenomenon that seems to occur so
that we can make useful predictions and gain power over our environment.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.425.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>