virus: Level 3 minds

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Fri, 25 Oct 1996 01:19:15 -0700

I am back in Vancouver from planet TeTa.
Thank you for bringing up the subject I left unfinished in May.

On Oct 22 Jason wrote:
>One problem I'm having is that it seems that Brodie's definition of the
>level-3 mind is unassailable. Firstly, it is fairly vague. [...] Secondly, the
>disclaimers and warnings effectively oil the walls of the level-3 fortress.
>To reach level-3 one must sit and meditate with an open mind until you
>suddenly grok the level-3 mind. These kind of instructions usually go hand
>in hand with fasting and/or hallucinagenic ingestion.

I am looking forward to Richard's response to Jason's post. There is
something fishy about level-3 arguments. Let's have a look at some "level-3
tricks" (quite a nice little meme) on this list.

It can be a very useful (and not honest) concept to avoid a difficult
question with:
"when you become an adult you will understand" or "this can only be
understood by people from level-3".

Richard came with a set of good level-3 tricks in May: "I'm not being
deliberately evasive, but the questions you ask cannot be answered in a
satisfying way in a level-2 framework." What a beauty!

Another good one: "I don't use that distinction-meme, which again is a
level-3 answer".

Or this one on consciousness: "You have a Level-2 definition of "conscious",
which is more like depth of understanding. It has nothing to do with Level-3
consciousness, which is being at cause in your life."

When I said: "I hope this is not your intension to kill my honest beliefs
just because it is your advice", Richard responded:

>I LIVE to kill people's beliefs! I want to get you out of Level 2!

Thank you Richard. What makes you think I am on level 2?

On October 16 Richard wrote:
>I've never been to Tibet, but there are quite a few people in Seattle
>who live much of their lives in Level 3.

At least we know there are some level-3 people in Seattle. Who are they,
Can you share some examples? It may help better understand what you mean by

(On the other hand, on planet TeTa we live very special lives. You will
never be able to grok it... Just believe me and follow what I say... I have
some USEFUL ways of getting what I want from you, as long as you believe me)

Great concepts CAN be explained. If a person is capable of grasping them is
a totally different thing. Any explanation "you are to stupid to understand
it" is not an explanation at all, and it does not move us forward.

I think the level-3 concept is a good start, and it can be worked on. The
first step is to agree not to use "level-3 tricks" in our discussion about
it. Is it OK with you, Richard? I am interested in building this model up,
as I am constantly interested in a better and better life (as long as I live).

My first thought about Richard's three levels from the "Virus of the Mind"
was Maslow's hierarchy of needs: (1) survival and (2) security needs =
level-1; social needs = level-2; (4) self-esteem and (5) selfactulization =
level-3. Can you relate to that, Richard?

Maslow also came up with two additional needs: the need for beauty and the
need for truth! The Truth is obviously level-4...

I want to get you up to Level 4, Richard!

Jason continues:
>Either way, it seems that the truth is regarded as unimportant,
>the usefulness of a meme being preferred. In fact, it seems that
>to worry about the truth of a meme is fundamentally a level-2
>concern. If it's useful, use it. If it happens to also be true,
>great, but that's not really an issue. Truth may be correlated
>with usefulness, but I suppose usefulness does not have to be
>correlated with truth.

These are the Absolute Truth and Memetical Hipocrysy threads from May. I am
glad you brought this back, Jason. I think this is important. I have the
same impression that Richard suggests that truth can be somehow "worked
around". This is what I called "memetical hypocrisy" in May (using
Nathaniel Branden's concept of self-esteem):

"A belief in a rational world increases self-esteem and chances for success,
as people like Bill Gates and his close friends must know very well. The
optimal selfish-meme strategy is to participate in spreading beliefs in an
'unknowable' world, but to secretly ignore them. This way more people with
lower self-esteem will follow them and work for them (longer hours). Those
people are easier to
control. They can be told what they *should do* and what a 'principled
life' is. This is MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY."

(BTW, Memetical Hypocrisy is illegal on planet TeTa).

Having met Richard Brodie at the Dawkins' presentation in Seattle, I am sure
Richard does it unconsciously. He is a charming and a very bright person
(if we could only level to the same level with level-3).

How USEFUL is it to regard truth as unimportant, Richard?

Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.