<<Richard, you're defining words in a screwy fashion here.>>
I really think you only feel that way because you're the one being screwed.
<< When people on
this list talk about faith, they're using Webster's first definition:
"unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence".>>
I think using the memetic model, we could perhaps agree that faith (the
non-pejorative term) is a strongly held meme. Putting it in a pejorative
light, we would add that the belief runs counter to scientific evidence. Of
course, since nobody here has actually done any of that science themselves,
we are really taking it on faith that it exists, but I don't want to get
into that right now.
<< The
scientific method itself is antithetical to this.>>
I think we all agree, if by that you mean that the scientific method is
designed to remove beliefs that do not fit observable data. But jump back a
level. How do we know that the scientific method works? It sure seems to...
I mean I certainly have faith in it.
<< Trusting in the
scientific method does not require faith, it simply requires the
observation that the scientific method works, and works well.>>
"Trusting in the power of prayer does not require faith, it simply requires
the observation that prayer works, and works well. (Testimonials attached)."
<< Thinking out
a hypothesis to it's conclusion does not require faith, assuming that the
"thinking out" entails analyzing evidence.>>
It does require a temporary assumption that the hypothesis is true. It's
just a temporary version of taking a faith-based position.
<<Happiness and the pursuit of
truth are not mutually exclusive, and I don't recall hearing anyone (except
possibly you) value one over the other.>>
Wanna bet?
See Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. "If I had to choose between God
and Truth, I'd choose God every time."
<<I have not read your book, but based on what you've written on this list
lately, your "Level 2" and "Level 3" concepts seem to place a high value on
muddled thinking.>>
Actually both Level 2 and Level 3 emphasize clear thinking. It seems to be
impossible for someone in Level 2 to "get" Level 3 without actually making
the transition. There have been at least a couple people on this list who
have made that leap in the time since I have been around.
<< Perhaps I shouldn't judge your concepts on the logical
fallacies that you've exhibited here.>>
Rather, if you chewed on it until you realized they are NOT fallacies, you
might get it.
<< OTOH, I can't escape the feeling
that you're trying to start a religion,>>
Well, yes, that is the stated purpose of this list.
<< complete with at least three of
Robert Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform:>>
Damn, you've caught me! Since you're a pretty sharp guy, I must be pretty
clever if you could only tar me with three of the eight brushes. What are
the other five? I bet if you all got together you could thoroughly convince
yourselves that what I have to say is dangerous, meaningless, and worthless,
all at the same time. People have an amazing capacity to distinguish and
discard what doesn't fit with their existing model of reality.
<<Criteria 6 - LOADING THE LANGUAGE - Eg. redefining "faith" to mean any
logical or illogical thought process. Using all-encompassing jargon like
"Level 2" and "Level 3". This is "the language of non-thought" to quote
Lifton.>>
I hope I cleared up what I mean by faith above.
<<Criteria 7 - DOCTRINE OVER PERSON - People can be neatly packaged into
"Level 2" or "Level 3". Level 3 people are more happy or enlightened than
Level 2 people. People who have not led a "happy" life are not worthy of
our study.>>
OK, you go and study miserable people and copy them and see where it gets
you. My heroes are brilliant, joyful, creative men such as Richard Feynman,
Abraham Lincoln, and Jeffrey Gitomer.
<<Criteria 8 - DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE - People who have not "graduated" to
Level 3 are doomed to a life of unenlightenment.>>
You're really stretching here. Writing people off is not something you'll
see me do very often. I have people who are so jealous of my success that
they actively spend energy trying to undermine me. But if one of those few
were to ask me for help, I would give it.
<<Since you found it appropriate to hypothesize about Nate Hall's
personality
by saying "you have a contrarian personality and an irrational addiction to
analysis", I'll take a shot at your personality. I would guess that you
have a messiah complex and a phenomenally monstrous ego. >>
Actually I AM the messiah and I have NO ego. By the way I don't consider
those comments on Nate's personality to be negative, just descriptive. I
hope they were taken with the love they were intended. Nate's my buddy.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm