>Richard Brodie wrote:
>>I don't remember saying that Absolute Truth doesn't exist. Perhaps I
>>said something similar that you rephrased?
>
>Let me paraphrase it with your own Santa example. If A asks: "What is
>'a
>principled life' if there is no Santa Claus?" B replies with: "This
>is a
>good question, and one that you can start answering for yourself just
>as
>soon as you disinfect yourself of the Santa Claus meme". Is it
>reasonable
>to assume that B does not believe in Santa, even if he does not state
>it
>explicitly?
Tad, I DID answer your question. The answer is to figure it out for
yourself!
As for Santa, I'm going to frustrate you by giving you a level-3
meta-answer again. It would be fairer to say that I don't believe in
"believing in" than that I don't believe in Santa.
>
>Are we playing with words or trying to understand something better? I
>do
>want to understand your point of view, Richard.
I'm not being deliberately evasive, but the questions you ask cannot be
answered in a satisfying way in a level-2 framework.
>
>In the "Virus of the Mind" you do not recommend three things:
> (1) "what comes naturally",
> (2) "the truth",
> (3) and "serving your DNA".
I would say that insisting that any of these three is the Right "life
purpose" is a Virian heresy.
>
>From "the quest for truth" chapter I understand you suggest that
>looking for
>too much accuracy is not very practical if one wants an enjoyable life.
If you're in level 2. If you're in level 1, it can be useful.
> It
>is a good point, but one which may lead to a cynical "maybe I owe you
>some
>money, but who really knows if it's true; how do you know 2 + 2 is 4?".
Whether you owe me money has nothing to do with Truth, it has to do with
agreement. And whether I try to collect the money is best decided by
weighing cost vs. benefit.
>Interestingly enough when I mentioned it, you did not even think of
>"analyzing past events" (as you do not recommend it in the book) since
>you
>find it "distracting from the enjoyment of life" and you suggested
>you'd
>rather invade planet TeTa, if it only paid off.
It's always a cost/benefit analysis. For instance, if I invaded TeTa
without good cause, it would cost me my personal integrity as well as
the repercussions of law-abiding society.
> This is exactly where
>ridiculing people who "spend time analyzing past events" (which you do
>in
>the book) leads to: "who cares who is right -- it is impossible to
>figure it
>out -- there is no Absolute Truth... so let's see who is stronger".
>This
>may be a useful strategy on the "FFFF first level", but not even on the
>second!
I don't ridicule people. I ridicule memes. And I never said it's
impossible to figure things out, only that some people do it to excess
without realizing the opportunity cost.
>
>Simply speaking, do you believe in existence of Absolute Truth,
>Richard?
I don't use that distinction-meme, which again is a level-3 answer.
>
>>>Richard ridicules me
>>
>>I do NOT ridicule you; I adore you! I may "tease" you now and then, but
>>be assured I only do that with my dearest friends. =)
>
>I love you, Richard -- and I would appreciate your sincere answers.
>Maybe
>you do not INTEND to ridicule me, but you DO (and I don't mind it, as
>long
>you do answer my questions), as you ridicule all people with the "quest
>for
>truth" meme (p. 216). If you don't see it, I have a very good book to
>recommend to you: "Getting past OK" and the example with the police...
As I remember I was making fun of myself in that example. It was a time
when I was infected with the Absolute Truth meme. Ridiculous!
>
>>Why this dichotomy? Maybe the world is sometimes rational, predictable,
>>intelligible, and sometimes contradictory, bewildering, unknowable.
>
>Maybe. Do you ever fly airplanes, Richard?
As a matter of fact, yes. =)
>
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://members.gnn.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is? http://members.gnn.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
>