Richard begins with:
>David, this post makes less logical sense than your previous ones. Do you
agree? >If so, why?
With no facts, he's implying I must be having a belief crisis, as I'm losing my
ability to think logically.
Then he writes:
>Also, I always get the impression that, after a rebuttal to one of your
>posts, you go off and confer with the Neo-Tech Central Committee or
>whatever and get fed the ammunition for the next salvo. Is this true?
Nope, sorry Richard, not true. I'm not connected to Neo-Tech or any
organization. I am doing this independently. But I feel flattered that you think
I must have the intelligence of more than one person.
Richard:
>When I read this, I thought you had wised up about Neo-Tech!
Me:
Are you implying that you already proved something about Neo-tech? The 39K thing
you posted to show Neo-Tech was a cult, was a practical joke played by Neo-Tech
to make a mock attack on itself so other attacks won't be taken seriously.
Anyway, I'm not Neo-Tech. Nyah, Nyah.
I wrote:
>>4)Why Brodie and his victim/supporters are getting their asses kicked
>>in
>>cyberspace.
Richard wrote:
>I have victim/supporters? Cool! Hey guys, send me money and virgins!
Richard, I have no idea if people like David MacFadzean and Reed Konsler are
rich or are virgins.
I write:
>> The objectivist axioms-existence, consciousness, and identity-are
>>concepts
>>that are self-evident in all conscious statements or actions. They are
>>implicit
>>in all knowledge and need no proof or definition.
Richard:
>You should use more than one hyphen---like this -- or this---for a dash.
>Otherwise it looks like you're making up a compound word like
>"axioms-existence." And wouldn't you think that something "implicit in
>all knowledge" would be self-evident to at least SOME people who haven't
>been brainwashed by Rand or Neo-Tech?
Richard--(double-hyphen)thanks for the grammar point. But, these axioms ARE
self-evident to SOME people who have never heard of Rand or Neo-Tech. But
popularizing through fiction and connection with other concepts is why Rand is
known for "discovering" them. I've met people, unlike Dave Pape, who figured
them out themselves.
>>Certain con-artists can rip
>>people off by inverting these axioms either explicitly or implicitly.
>And other con-artists can rip people off WITHOUT inverting them,
>whatever that means.
Yes, Richard. But is that relevant?
I wrote:
>>By
>>understanding the axioms and how frauds are perpetrated by people who
>>invert
>>them, one can prevent axiom-inverting con-artists from getting away
>>with fraud.
>>(For an explanation of why these axioms are valid and why a situation
>>where
>>"scientists someday find there is no free will" can't happen, read
>>Leonard
>>Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".)
Richard writes:
>I'll get right to that if I ever meet anyone who follows Rand's
>philosophy who seems like they're getting more out of life than I am.
>That's when you should look at reprogramming your mind: when people you
>admire have different positions from you.
You make a good point, that objectivism does not necessarily help people get
things out of life, and many objectivists are stagnant losers who philosophize
their lives away. However, you are making a false assumption that I admire you.
I got some good information out of your book, "Virus of the Mind", but I don't
consider it anything spectacular. Remember when I pointed out that there was
something wrong with the "Truth Machine", about how the context was acceptance
of current institutions as they are today? Well, most books that are
bestsellers, like yours, have the same problem. Your context, (in this case the
mind being totally programmable like a computer) is vogue, Skinnerian, and
bogus, keeping your book at a mediocre level like most of the crap on
television. When people don't know if me and you are the same person, I take
that as an insult. Anyone who has seen some of my posts, knows, that you are not
capable of writing or thinking like me!
I write:
>> Free will, a corollary of the 2nd axiom-consciousness, is treated as
>>non-existent in religion-based memetics.
Richard writes:
>Translation: the memetics paradigm renders the distinction-meme "free
>will" useless. Since it's one of the cornerstones of your philosophy
>(memetic model), you must make up some reason that memetics is "wrong."
>Calling it a religion is one way, in your mind at least.
Translation problem: Did I ever say memetics is necessarily a religion? Am I
just saying it can be used as a religion and criticizing that kind of stupidity?
I wrote:
>> An idea behind religion-based memetics
>>is that our thoughts are not in our control since thoughts are just an
>>interaction of memes which compete with each other for survival.
>Just the opposite. I think the more you understand memetics, the more
>you're in control of your thoughts. It's the unconscious people who are
>meme slaves. Level 1's the most, then level 2's. Level 3ers are much
>more in control of their memes.
Hey, Richard, why not throw in free will when it's convenient, what the hell.
snip boring non-sequitur stuff
>> To see how this works, it is important to understand that there
>>are 2 and
>>ONLY 2 philosophical systems of thought: Platonistic and Aristotelian.
>You lost me here. Why on earth would you assert there are only two?
Can you show me another kind? Go ahead.
I wrote:
>>Platonistic ideologies are characterized by
>>1. Existence of "higher realities" to the one we observe,
>>2. Inability to understand those realities with our minds and senses
>>3. Sacrificing oneself to a "higher cause".
>>4. Political structure in which the State controls individuals through
>>deception
>>and force.
>>Aristotelian ideologies are characterized by:
>>1. Existence of only one reality.
>>2. Ability of the mind to figure out reality.
>>3. Good action benefits individuals, which are not subordinate to a
>>"higher
>>cause".
>>4. Political structures should allow people freedom of thought and
>>action.
Richard:
>OK, here's Brodieism:
>1. Unknowability, but presumption, of reality.
>2. Impossibility of mapping that reality with arbitrary precision
>(conflict of precision and generalization).
>3. Living life on purpose, a purpose chosen wisely by the individual.
>4. Political structures are self-perpetuating cultural organisms and
should be watched at the best, demolished at the worst.
Sorry, Richard. Brodieism is a mixture of Aristotelianism (3 and 4) and
Platonism (1 and 2). They are not INTEGRATED.
>> The religion-based memetic ideas are Platonistic notions. For
>>instance, "More
>>evolved memes that your mind may possess in the future" is the same as
>>Plato's
>>"higher realities".
>Uh...no. Would you consider "you will be able to speak French better in
>the future" Platonic?
You're a man of such simplicity.
>> And, "your thoughts are based on memes which are only
>>constructs of language and have nothing to do with reality" is the same
>>as
>>Plato's "your mind is impotent to know true reality".
>I agree with your quote attributed to Plato, but no one here says your
>memes have NOTHING to do with reality, only that they are imperfect
>descriptions, many of which are possible.
Excuse me, but religion-based memeticists will say something like that if it
fits with their agenda.
>> These notions, if taken
>>to their conclusion, become woven into an integrated philosophical
>>system that
>>encompasses all subject matter including politics. Such a system, if
>>accepted by
>>enough people, can be used by a handful of dishonest people to
>>manipulate and
>>control the masses.
>Red herring. This could apply to any philosophy. And I doubt memetics
>will ever become a "mass movement." You have to be too smart to get it.
I suppose that von Neumannesque programmable quality of memes has no
application in the social sphere. Yeah, right!
>> CoV is NOT such an intentional political scam. In fact, most
>>people are
>>here to discuss memetics and meet others who are like-minded. But, most
>>people,
>>in general have tendencies to follow "higher authorities" and accept
>>Platonistic ideas.
>Odd statement. Very few people ever talk to me about Plato. In fact, I
>would venture to say I've heard more about Plato from you in the last
>few weeks than I have from all other sources combined in the past 10
>years.
That's because most of the people who talk to you are simple-minded morons from
"Platonic" Universities who hang out in Barnes & Noble bookstores.
>> And, within the human population there is a small percentage
>>which manipulates others through people's authority-accepting and
>>Platonistic
>>tendencies. So, just 1 or 2 people on an internet mailing list like
>>CoV can
>>create a major epidemic in which a diseased form of religious thinking
>>spreads
>>throughout society-unless it is contained.
>Good crisis memes! However, if we ever create a "major epidemic" from
>this ol' list I'll be more surprised than anyone.
Good form of evasion! However, I agree, you won't create a "major epidemic". I
will not tell you why. But your best bet is to hire Derek Pape to shoot me. He
has a gun, remember?
>> Here is how this is happening at CoV: At CoV, there is often a
>>pattern in
>>which someone starts a discussion by making an assertion (thesis) and
>>that
>>assertion is countered by someone else taking a meme out of context
>>(antithesis)
>>which causes the person making the assertion to become confused and
>>have a
>>"belief crisis".
>Look, David, the only one having a belief crisis around here is YOU. And
>you're having it because you've run into a rare group of clear thinkers
>who are trying to disinfect you from the loaded language and
>rational-labeled-irrationality of Neo-Tech.
These clear thinkers have already disinfected me. Now I'm on Level 3 like you.
Let's talk shop.
>> This activity, in which some people induce confusion in others,
>>is very contagious as more and more people get "belief crises" and
>>induce these
>>belief crises in others.
>Nonsense. You're just making this up.
At least I have an imagination.
>> If someone stays with this activity for a while, one
>>would get the hang of how it works and go off to start their own "CoV"
>>as a
>>"master virus" and the whole process can replicate as a growing mind
>>virus
>>spreads throughout the internet and beyond. The end result would be the
>>popularization of a highly evolved Platonistic belief system with a
>>memetics
>>twist.
>It's not quite that easy to start a religion, at least not one that
>works the way you want it to. Ask L. Ron Hubbard.
L. Ron Hubbard's dead.
I don't expect too many people to keep reading on, but here is something pretty
funny:
Richard:
>A dangerous notion. The Nazis didn't misunderstand anything. They were
>schooled in the Four Principles, which I never repeat, because anyone
>who knows them can easily create a runaway movement. But no
>misunderstanding is needed, just the right mix of memes.
Thanks for protecting me from runaway movements by keeping the Four Principles a
secret. David Rosdeitcher