I wouldn't be surprised if Richard didn't answer my question because he is
bright enough to see where this is going. Of course it would be ludicrous
if he claimed that only his definition of "beauty" is a valid Level-3 core
need. But if he doesn't claim that then it leaves a back door open for (you
guessed it) logic! Yes, few things are more beautiful to me than a logical
argument that is simultaneously elegant, eloquent and true. Whether it is
a mathematical proof, a scientific paper, a rant on the Extropians mailing
list, a classic Bertrand Russel essay, or a public rebuttal from one
contemporary philosopher to another, it is the beauty that compels me
to read and believe, and it is the beauty of it that inspires me to
learn to construct one of my own.
I find the idea of Level-3 appealing. It promises a way to happiness and
I want to be happy just as much as the next guy. It claims to be a level
above and/or beyond Level-2 and I hate being left behind (has anyone ever
questioned whether the sheer act of giving a level a higher number than
another makes it better?). I was dismayed that my every attempt to get
onto Level-3 while retaining rationality was blocked by Richard, the L3
guru. Now he must validate my core needs, or say that only certain kinds
of beauty are admissible. Your move, Richard. :-)
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/