> virus-digest Friday, October 3 1997 Volume 02 :
> Number 263
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > >you simply have faith that there is an underlying consistent
> physical
> > >reality. This can never be proved, but it sure feels obvious. And
> > >discussing it seems fairly pointless.
> >
> > I don't have faith in that conjecture but I do have a large amount
> > of evidence that suggests that it is true. Here's another possible
> > counterexample: what if you could summon a ghost that we can all see
>
> > but that doesn't appear on film or any recording? The ghost can
> > tell us information that we have no way of otherwise knowing. James
> Randi
> > and all of his skeptical pals run every test they can think of to
> debunk
> > the trick, but they can't because it is real. This would change my
> mind
> > about the nature of objective reality, therefore it is not faith.
>
> It seems very important to you, David, to not have faith. But you
> make the
> same mistake as Christians who look for archaeological evidence to
> back up
> the stories in the Bible. All the evidence in the world for the David
> and
> Goliath story being true does not imply Gods hand at work in guiding
> to
> pebble. And all the evidence you have for your *faith* does not make
> it
> any less of a faith.
>
> And just because your faith can adapt over time does not make it any
> less
> of a faith. You obviously have never spent years around any devote
> /anything/ if you think their faith doesn't adapt to fit the physical
> reality of the times. Look at the history of the church, David. It
> changes course as often as science does (although admittedly about
> 50-75
> behind science these days).
>
> Do *you* need a new, more palatable word for "faith based on
> evidence"?
> (I know some Christians who could use the word too, once you coin it!)
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Marie Foster wrote:
>
> > If we are going to be able to really make this a science we must
> come up
> > with some simple assumptions we can test. I have a study I would
> like
> > to do if I had the time.
>
> Do tell!!! If public knowledge would spoil the data collection, sent
> it
> to me off list. I'm very interested. I had an idea as well, which I
> offered here, but don't have the time (it seems) to carry out. Maybe
> I'll
> send it to you.
>
> > I am feeling that memetics has already split between theorists and
> > pragmatists.
>
> Many of the theorists, I suspect, would love to be pragmatists, but
> don't
> have the time. When is someone going to offer a grant for memetic
> research!!!
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
> > >1) Are we ready to "start exploring the weird and wonderful
> territory
> > >entailed by the aforementioned conjecture" ? (Allowing dead Goliath
> to flip
> > >here and there, of course).
> >
> > Sure, I think we have enough of a consensus to continue. Assuming
> the
> > conjecture is true, can we figure out what parts of physical reality
>
> > (if any) are inaccessible to someone hosting the scientific/logical
> > belief system?
>
> You realize, of course, that by the very nature of the question you
> won't
> be able to use the scientific/logical belief system to get your
> answer.
> You do realize that, right?
>
> > >2) Can we use A=A as a shorthand notation for your conjecture?
> >
> > Not if the Objectivists have given it another meaning.
>
> Agreed.
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:32:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: Re: virus: Re:PCR Three Axioms
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>
> > I can't really speak to A=A except to say that:
> >
> > A
> > A equals A
> > A
>
> I like it!
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:36:56 -0500
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> (And if that seems to veer towards subjectivism, it's
> only to counteract a tendency in the opposite
> direction!)
>
> Robin
>
> I don't think one can be both objective and subjective--believing that
> there
> is an objective truth *and* multiple truths that lead to a subjective
> evaluation. Eventually one stops balancing one view against the other
> and
> develops a third view which explains something (as opposed to passing
> it
> back and forth without ever resolving it).
>
> Brett
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> The shortest distance between two points is under
> construction.
>
> Noelie Altito
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: RE: virus: Social Metaphysics
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > > From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
> > > I meant primary in the sense that physical reality is
> > > made out of mind. There are two main positions in the
> > > philosophy of mind: dualism and monism. Dualists believe
> > > that everything is physical or mental. The monists
> > > believe everything is made out of one substance.
> > >
> > Don't forget dual aspect theory: everything seems to be
> > either physical or mental, but in fact there's really only
> > sort of stuff. It's the best of both worlds! :-)
>
> Hmmmm.... monism(1) and dualism(2) and... what do we call that *third*
>
> level agian?
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
> > You can change your definition of "faith" every day but that doesn't
> mean
> > you're right in any sense of the word.
>
> Utt-oh! The kid in the glass house is playing with stones again!!!
>
> - -Prof. Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:38:31 -0400
> From: "D.H.Rosdeitcher" <76473.3041@compuserve.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Social Metaphysics
>
> Tim wrote:
>
> >> Don't forget dual aspect theory: everything seems to be
> >> either physical or mental, but in fact there's really only
> >> sort of stuff. It's the best of both worlds! :-)
>
> >Hmmmm.... monism(1) and dualism(2) and... what do we call that
> *third*
> >level agian?
>
> A 4th exists, too. Just as world 3 ideas emerge from world 2 minds,
> which
> emerge from world 1 physical reality, there is world 0--an abstract
> mathematical plane from which the physical world emerges.
> - --David R.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:13:37 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> At 11:13 AM 10/2/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
> >It seems very important to you, David, to not have faith. But you
> make the
>
> That is correct. I think that idea that "faith is good" is the most
> pernicious myth in western civilization. That is why I created the
> CoV, to combat the myth. Of course the truth of my assertion depends
> on the definition of faith I have posted practically every week for
> a year now.
>
> >same mistake as Christians who look for archaeological evidence to
> back up
> >the stories in the Bible. All the evidence in the world for the
> David and
> >Goliath story being true does not imply Gods hand at work in guiding
> to
> >pebble. And all the evidence you have for your *faith* does not make
> it
> >any less of a faith.
>
> And science is just another religion, right?
>
> >And just because your faith can adapt over time does not make it any
> less
> >of a faith. You obviously have never spent years around any devote
> >/anything/ if you think their faith doesn't adapt to fit the physical
>
> >reality of the times. Look at the history of the church, David. It
> >changes course as often as science does (although admittedly about
> 50-75
> >behind science these days).
>
> When has the church ever lost faith in a deity?
>
> >Do *you* need a new, more palatable word for "faith based on
> evidence"?
> >(I know some Christians who could use the word too, once you coin
> it!)
>
> Not all beliefs are based on faith. If they were, then faith becomes
> a meaningless word.
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:19:52 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: MS Weapon
>
> At 04:44 PM 10/1/97 -0700, Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
>
> >aspects of the world one most wants illuminated at the time. In
> fact, the
> >illumination metaphor seems like a good one; let me fill it in. A
> >worldview is like a light source--using a particular kind and
> direction of
> >light, we can see many aspects of the room we're in and its contents.
>
> >Some light sources will be generally more useful than others, and
> some
> >will be more helpful for specific purposes than others. None of them
> can
> >illuminate everything in the room at once for us--all of them will
> cast
> >shadows, and include only part of the spectrum. A Level-1 person is
> using
> >whatever light source is handy, without particularly thinking about
> how it
> >might be improved on. A Level-2 person is working to perfect eir
> light
> >source--to make it bright, broad-spectrum, and well-positioned. A
> Level-3
> >person has collected several lights of various types e has found
> useful,
> >has probably worked on them a bit, and now uses them for different
> >purposes, and/or switches among them to get new insights. E is also
> >likely to be willing to play with new possibilities.
>
> Some light sources seem to illuminate previously unseen parts of the
> room, but in fact they project images of things that aren't actually
> there. How do you tell the difference, or does it matter?
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:21:57 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> At 11:29 AM 10/2/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
> >> Sure, I think we have enough of a consensus to continue. Assuming
> the
> >> conjecture is true, can we figure out what parts of physical
> reality
> >> (if any) are inaccessible to someone hosting the scientific/logical
>
> >> belief system?
> >
> >You realize, of course, that by the very nature of the question you
> won't
> >be able to use the scientific/logical belief system to get your
> answer.
> >You do realize that, right?
>
> Well that is a problem, isn't it? Do you think every belief system is
> equally valid? If not, what are your criteria?
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 14:29:58 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> At 11:59 AM 10/2/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> >
> >> You can change your definition of "faith" every day but that
> doesn't mean
> >> you're right in any sense of the word.
> >
> >Utt-oh! The kid in the glass house is playing with stones again!!!
>
> If you are suggesting that I change my definition of "faith" from
> message
> to message I would like to know about it. Please point them out.
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:27:20 -0500
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Social Metaphysics
>
> At 03:38 PM 10/2/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Tim wrote:
> >
> >>> Don't forget dual aspect theory: everything seems to be
> >>> either physical or mental, but in fact there's really only
> >>> sort of stuff. It's the best of both worlds! :-)
> >
> >>Hmmmm.... monism(1) and dualism(2) and... what do we call that
> *third*
> >>level agian?
> >
> > A 4th exists, too. Just as world 3 ideas emerge from world 2 minds,
> which
> >emerge from world 1 physical reality, there is world 0--an abstract
> >mathematical plane from which the physical world emerges.
> >--David R.
>
> List,
>
> I put 5 dimensions on an easy to read graph
> (http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/timebox.jpg). Anyone look at it?
>
> Brett
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> The shortest distance between two points is under
> construction.
>
> Noelie Altito
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:39:37 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> At 10:13 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> >item, so A=A is tautologous. I believe that makes it
> >invalid as an axiom, but I have to admit I'm not well
> >up on formal systems, and will welcome any comments.
>
> Tautologies (statements that are necessarily true) are
> valid axioms. For instance, the inference rules of a
> logic system such as (A & B) -> ~(~A v ~B) are tautologous
> axioms. Contradictions (statements that are necessarily
> false) are invalid axioms.
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:40:48 -0700
> From: Marie Foster <mfos@ieway.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Marie Foster wrote:
> >
> > > If we are going to be able to really make this a science we must
> come up
> > > with some simple assumptions we can test. I have a study I would
> like
> > > to do if I had the time.
> >
> > Do tell!!! If public knowledge would spoil the data collection,
> sent it
> > to me off list. I'm very interested. I had an idea as well, which
> I
> > offered here, but don't have the time (it seems) to carry out.
> Maybe I'll
> > send it to you.
> >
> > > I am feeling that memetics has already split between theorists and
>
> > > pragmatists.
> >
> > Many of the theorists, I suspect, would love to be pragmatists, but
> don't
> > have the time. When is someone going to offer a grant for memetic
> > research!!!
> >
> > -Prof. Tim
>
> I know of a behavior that started just about 30 years ago. A word has
>
> even entered the dictionary that describes the behavior as it exists
> today. Yet, the behavior started to change in a very fundamental way
> once it spread outside of the group that started it. I have often
> thought about doing a literature search and plot the spread of this
> over
> time and place.
>
> The reason I think it would be a good research item is that this is a
> very inconsequential act. But because of its nature the media has
> been
> instrumental in disseminating it. It is the association of the
> behavior
> to the word that describes it that is interesting to me.
>
> I know that this is vague. One must keep some secrets.
>
> Secretly,
>
> Marie
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:49:18 -0700
> From: Marie Foster <mfos@ieway.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: Study: Infants start learning language in the crib
>
> Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
> I
> > thus find myself furrowing my brow at this study's contrary
> assumption
> > that the sounds to which babies will attend longer are the ones they
>
> > recognize. Either the case is more complex than either assumption
> can
> > account for, or somebody is mistaken.
> >
> > Eva,
> > interrogating infants
>
> I may be wrong, but I think what may be going on here is the
> difference
> in the research between visual and auditory stimula.
>
> Marie
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:57:07 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Social Metaphysics
>
> Tim wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >> Don't forget dual aspect theory: everything seems to be
> >> either physical or mental, but in fact there's really only
> >> sort of stuff. It's the best of both worlds! :-)
> >
> >Hmmmm.... monism(1) and dualism(2) and... what do we call that
> *third*
> >level agian?
>
> MS Flip.
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:57:12 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> Tim wrote:
> >It seems very important to you, David, to not have faith. But you
> make the
> >same mistake as Christians who look for archaeological evidence to
> back up
> >the stories in the Bible. All the evidence in the world for the
> David and
> >Goliath story being true does not imply Gods hand at work in guiding
> to
> >pebble.
>
> Stop beating a dead straw man. Goliath is dead!
>
> >And all the evidence you have for your *faith* does not make it
> >any less of a faith.
>
> David's "faith" can build computers and none of the other "faiths"
> can.
> There may be some subtle differences, don't you think?
>
> "The film /Apollo 13/, based on his book /Lost Moon/, was about to be
> released. In a quietly understated way, Lovell told of the explosion
> of an
> oxygen tank that turned the mission into a race for survival against
> one
> potential catastrophe after the another -- from a rapidly diminishing
> supply
> of breathable air to a battery strength insufficient for a return to
> earth
> - -- in a deteriorating spacecraft hurtling through the cosmos to
> almost
> certain destruction. What was thrilling about the interview was the
> sense
> one got of the magnificent teamwork between the men on board the
> spacecraft
> and the support crew on earth interacting at a height of disciplined
> intelligence and passionate competence -- which resulted in the craft
> and
> its inhabitants being brought safely home. [...]
>
> "I do not know how rational any of those people were in the rest of
> their
> lives, but in this situation, reality was an absolute (no one imagined
> the
> problem would go away if they simply didn't think of it), reason was
> an
> absolute (no one phoned his astrologer for suggestions) and the
> relationship
> between rationality and survival was understood by all.
>
> "If one wanted to see the spirituality of reason in action, I thought,
> this
> was it."
>
> From: "The Art of Living Consciously, the Power of Awareness to
> Transform
> Everyday Life" by Nathaniel Branden.
>
> I think it is a good example of David's "faith".
>
> >And just because your faith can adapt over time does not make it any
> less
> >of a faith. You obviously have never spent years around any devote
> >/anything/ if you think their faith doesn't adapt to fit the physical
>
> >reality of the times. Look at the history of the church, David. It
> >changes course as often as science does (although admittedly about
> 50-75
> >behind science these days).
> >
> >Do *you* need a new, more palatable word for "faith based on
> evidence"?
> >(I know some Christians who could use the word too, once you coin
> it!)
>
> Excellent piece of MS Flip, Tim. Thank you.
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:57:10 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> Brett wrote:
> >I don't think one can be both objective and subjective--believing
> that there
> >is an objective truth *and* multiple truths that lead to a subjective
>
> >evaluation. Eventually one stops balancing one view against the
> other and
> >develops a third view which explains something (as opposed to passing
> it
> >back and forth without ever resolving it).
>
> Unless one is MAIDS positive.
>
> Brett, this is a typical Level-2 thinking, I want to save you, and
> bring you
> to Level-3. Just blindly follow me. :-)
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:57:05 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> >As I already said, I used that phrase, not for what I
> >believe, but for what I believe some folks believe. The
> >concept of the underlying cause can be useful in
> >certain circumstances, but has severe limitations. I
> >agree very happily that genes are also abstractions.
> >But then I also said that they are not really an
> >underlying cause either.
>
> Oh, Robin, this is the very foundation of this thread! That was the
> whole
> point to appreciate the similarity between genes and memes. When you
> wrote
> [sic]:
>
> "The meme is not some underlying cause, as is the gene"
>
> it was exactly your idea to bring "the underlying cause" concept to
> this
> discussion in this context, which prompted me to start this "Meme, the
>
> Underlying Cause" thread.
>
> You forgot I had this program, right? :-) It took me less than a
> minute to
> find the original (Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:14:32 -0700):
>
> <<=======
> Robin wrote:
> >But I don't agree! Just about everyone around here seems
> >to be happy to reify memes, to view them as "things", when
> >for me they're theoretical constructs. Thus, any piece of
> >behaviour that tends to be propagated is a meme (or meme-
> >complex). The meme is not some underlying cause, as is
> >the gene.
>
> Robin, you brought the main issue here: is meme the "underlying
> cause"?
> =======>>
>
> How do you feel? Yes, I do want to ask you about your feelings right
> now (I
> am not a cold Objectivist :-) afterall). How do you feel when after 7
> days
> and 21 posts, I shoot you with facts?
>
> I am mostly interested in your reaction.
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 15:58:53 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> >
> >> You can change your definition of "faith" every day but that
> doesn't mean
> >> you're right in any sense of the word.
> >
> >Utt-oh! The kid in the glass house is playing with stones again!!!
>
> And a MAIDS victim is playing with MS Flip.
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:02:51 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> David wrote:
> >If you are suggesting that I change my definition of "faith" from
> message
> >to message I would like to know about it. Please point them out.
>
> David, it's just an MS Flip. Don't get excited. :-)
>
> Isn't this a "Social Metaphysic" thread anyway?
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:49:27 -0500
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> List,
>
> I think I've gone on record to state that a tautology is not a valid
> axiom.
> I don't understand the example below; but I assume there is more to it
> than
> "something" exactly equals "the same thing"...I am guessing that it
> says
> something like: something and something else can be viewed as if
> their
> "whole" is equal to the "combination" of the parts. But, while 2=2
> might be
> a tautology, 1+1=2 is an axiom. (I translate "1+1=2" to say there is
> that
> which exists(1) and that which continues in the same form (a different
> 1) so
> that a relationship between them can be represented as a new
> existence
> ("2"...which is neither the first one nor the second, but is--in
> fact--a
> relationship between them)...a definition of "axiom" might therefore
> be
> stated: An illustration which shows existence and being and states a
> relationship between them.
>
> I will not argue against set theorists and mathematicians that claim
> otherwise. I would be open to further discussion as to which
> interpretation
> is more correct (and on what grounds...other than "my math teacher
> said so").
>
> Brett
>
> At 03:39 PM 10/2/97 -0600, you wrote:
> >At 10:13 AM 10/1/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> >>item, so A=A is tautologous. I believe that makes it
> >>invalid as an axiom, but I have to admit I'm not well
> >>up on formal systems, and will welcome any comments.
>
> >Tautologies (statements that are necessarily true) are
> >valid axioms. For instance, the inference rules of a
> >logic system such as (A & B) -> ~(~A v ~B) are tautologous
> >axioms. Contradictions (statements that are necessarily
> >false) are invalid axioms.
>
> >David McFadzean
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> The shortest distance between two points is under
> construction.
>
> Noelie Altito
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:50:32 -0700
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski <tad@teta.ai>
> Subject: Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> Marie, who hopes to get a grant for memetic research from Prof. Tim,
> wrote:
>
> >The reason I think it would be a good research item is that this is a
>
> >very inconsequential act. But because of its nature the media has
> been
> >instrumental in disseminating it. It is the association of the
> behavior
> >to the word that describes it that is interesting to me.
> >
> >I know that this is vague. One must keep some secrets.
> >
> >Secretly,
> >
> >Marie
>
> What a great MS Flip star is raising !!!
>
> Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
> tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:40:59 -0600
> From: scimitar@ism.net
> Subject: Re: virus: MS Weapon
>
> At 04:44 PM 10/1/97 -0700, Eva-Lise Carlstrom wrote:
>
> >Level-3 isn't just the ability to change your belief system, but the
> >ability to change among belief systems. By the distinction, I mean
> that a
> >Level-3 person isn't merely seeking to improve on a current model,
> but to
> >keep multiple models around, and change among them depending on which
>
> >aspects of the world one most wants illuminated at the time. In
> fact, the
> >illumination metaphor seems like a good one; let me fill it in. A
> >worldview is like a light source--using a particular kind and
> direction of
> >light, we can see many aspects of the room we're in and its contents.
>
> >Some light sources will be generally more useful than others, and
> some
> >will be more helpful for specific purposes than others. None of them
> can
> >illuminate everything in the room at once for us--all of them will
> cast
> >shadows, and include only part of the spectrum. A Level-1 person is
> using
> >whatever light source is handy, without particularly thinking about
> how it
> >might be improved on. A Level-2 person is working to perfect eir
> light
> >source--to make it bright, broad-spectrum, and well-positioned. A
> Level-3
> >person has collected several lights of various types e has found
> useful,
> >has probably worked on them a bit, and now uses them for different
> >purposes, and/or switches among them to get new insights. E is also
> >likely to be willing to play with new possibilities.
> >
>
> So...
>
> Level-1 lives in a box, Level-2 lives in a tunnel, and Level-3 lives
> everywhere at once?
>
> Regards, Sir Orpheus Q. Licentious
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 19:10:28 -0600
> From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: MS Weapon
>
> At 06:40 PM 10/2/97 -0600, scimitar@ism.net wrote:
>
> >Level-1 lives in a box, Level-2 lives in a tunnel, and Level-3 lives
> >everywhere at once?
>
> That's right. But Level-3 only seems to live everywhere at once,
> actually
> they live on the holodeck. Level-4 (who realize they have the power to
>
> choose their memes, so they choose the ones that make them most
> effective)
> live on the starship.
>
> - --
> David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
> Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
> Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 22:02:24 -0500
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <unameit@tctc.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> At 03:57 PM 10/2/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >Brett wrote:
> >>I don't think one can be both objective and subjective--believing
> that there
> >>is an objective truth *and* multiple truths that lead to a
> subjective
> >>evaluation. Eventually one stops balancing one view against the
> other and
> >>develops a third view which explains something (as opposed to
> passing it
> >>back and forth without ever resolving it).
>
> >Unless one is MAIDS positive.
>
> >Brett, this is a typical Level-2 thinking, I want to save you, and
> bring you
> >to Level-3. Just blindly follow me. :-)
>
> >Regards, Tadeusz
>
> When the women on this list smart off by making sexual innuendos or
> through
> making light of a subject--bringing in cute shoes, or cheesecake--I'm
> usually real quick to point out that this is not a chat-room and that
> the
> proper place for such silliness related to the group is private
> email. I am
> ahamed to say that I was slow on the uptake...seeing the humor in your
>
> sarcastic attitude I smiled--and assumed that the humor was hiding
> some deep
> understanding of the topic (an assumption I failed to make toward the
> ladies--until now that is, sorry).
>
> My attitude toward electronic mailing lists has become more lenient.
> They
> attract all kinds (though I think that as more people get into
> computers the
> IQ of the average computer user goes way down). My attitude toward
> women
> has shown some improvement--I have seen some well-hidden intelligence
> in
> their flippant remarks (not often, usually they are confused by the
> scope of
> the posts and regress to childish or adolescent behavior...but
> sometimes).
> I have also learned to loosen up some and appreciate the humor--as a
> relief
> from the tedious nature of intelligent discourse.
>
> I enjoyed your response above :) But, does it hide some deeper
> intellectual truth? Or, is it "show-off" behavior...do you need
> someone to
> pay more attention to you? Are you threatened by the topic and are
> you
> thus regressing to a more child-like level? Is childishness your
> predominant way of interacting with others (should we start a list
> "Child-L"
> for you)?
>
> Or, is this a symptom of a much wider problem--anti-intellectualism,
> anti-individualism, a group spirit's cry to the individual who excells
> to
> slow down and wait for the rest to catch-up? Tossing catch-phrases
> around
> and pointing fingers is not the way I learned to communicate with
> adults.
>
> Brett
>
> (Did I say that I enjoy your humor? Shame on me!)
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> The shortest distance between two points is under
> construction.
>
> Noelie Altito
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:32:15 +0100
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: virus: MS Weapon
>
> > From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
> >
> > Some light sources seem to illuminate previously unseen parts of the
>
> > room, but in fact they project images of things that aren't actually
>
> > there. How do you tell the difference, or does it matter?
> >
> You can usually tell the difference by taking a different
> point of view, or shifting the position of the light (which
> amounts to much the same thing), and comparing the
> results. (But that's difficult if you insist that your
> present POV and lighting are The Best.)
>
> It matters if and when it makes a difference to us, not
> otherwise.
>
> Robin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:08:22 +0100
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
>
> > From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
> >
> > At 11:13 AM 10/2/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > >It seems very important to you, David, to not have faith. But you
> > make the
> >
> > That is correct. I think that idea that "faith is good" is the most
> > pernicious myth in western civilization....
> >
> >
> I urge you very strongly to look at http://online.guardian.co.uk/
> and then click on "Blind Faith". This is about the best thing on
> science and religion I've ever read. Don Cupitt knows what he
> is talking about! (And it's not The Truth, scientific *or*
> religious.)
>
> Seriously, I think the debate could really move forward if
> everyone interested in science vs religion, not just David, read
> and thought about this article.
>
> Robin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:04:35 +0100
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> > From: Tadeusz Niwinski[SMTP:tad@teta.ai]
> >
> > >As I already said, I used that phrase, not for what I
> > >believe, but for what I believe some folks believe. The
> > >concept of the underlying cause can be useful in
> > >certain circumstances, but has severe limitations. I
> > >agree very happily that genes are also abstractions.
> > >But then I also said that they are not really an
> > >underlying cause either.
> >
> > Oh, Robin, this is the very foundation of this thread! That was the
>
> > whole
> > point to appreciate the similarity between genes and memes.
> >
> >
> No. The whole point was that memes do not underlay
> behaviour, they are not something different from
> behaviour. Or rather, that was the whole point for me.
> Of course, one person's point may be different from
> another's... unless you know better?
>
> > When you wrote
> > [sic]:
> >
> > "The meme is not some underlying cause, as is the gene"
> >
> > it was exactly your idea to bring "the underlying cause" concept to
> > this
> > discussion in this context, which prompted me to start this "Meme,
> the
> > Underlying Cause" thread.
> >
> >
> I introduced that phrase... so what? I also said more than
> once that it was not my concept. And I said that it is useful
> in some cases and not others. Sure, I said that genes are
> underlying causes, and that they are not. That was very
> simply because I mistakenly thought the concept would be
> useful in this case, and then I changed my mind about
> that. But I wrote *so* much about causation in general,
> and underlying causes in particular, that only someone
> who wished to do so, could mistake my main intent here.
> You look for trouble, Tad, that's what you'll find. The rest
> of us are more interested in finding and building upon
> areas of agreement.
>
> > You forgot I had this program, right? :-) It took me less than a
> > minute to
> > find the original (Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:14:32 -0700):
> >
> >
> You honestly believe that I intended to mislead anyone?
> That it was my plan to contradict myself, in the hope
> that noone would notice? I think you project your own
> deviousness upon other people. We are not all like you,
> Tad, thank goodness.
>
> > How do you feel? Yes, I do want to ask you about your feelings
> right
> > now (I
> > am not a cold Objectivist :-) afterall). How do you feel when after
> 7
> > days
> > and 21 posts, I shoot you with facts?
> >
> >
> I feel maybe corresponding with you is a waste of time.
> Except, of course, for the amusement and edification
> that others may derive from it. And also, this is my
> first significant enounter with you, and I will know what
> to expect in future. No, not waste after all.
>
> Now, Tad, would you like to return to memes, genes and
> causation, or do you think you have disposed of that
> subject?
>
> Robin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:16:04 +0100
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: virus: Meme, the Underlying Cause
>
> > From: Brett Lane Robertson[SMTP:unameit@tctc.com]
> >
> > When the women on this list smart off by making sexual innuendos...
> >
> Brett, I don't usually respond to you, because I find your
> thinking too difficult to follow, but this one was just
> incredible.
>
> How can one person be so right about one thing (Tad),
> and in such close conjunction, so wrong about another
> (women)? Where have you been all your life, Brett?
> Seriously, I'd be really interested to know a little about
> your background, and I'm sure others around here
> would too.
>
> Robin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of virus-digest V2 #263
> ***************************
