virus: Level 3 dichotomy

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Mon, 04 Nov 1996 19:12:34 -0800

KMO was kind enough to put some words in my mouth:

>Many of them were written by Tad Niwinski, who thinks that this level 3
>stuff is such irredeemable crap that he's working to get "Virus of the
>Mind" translated into Polish.

Kevin, thank you for another excellent example of "possibly conflicting
ways" to be used to "map objective reality".

There are evidently two separate issues here. A "Level-3 dichotomy":

(1) We are discussing a phenomenon which has been researched and described
by many psychologists, scientists, and religions. It is this "jump" from
one way of living to another ("self-actualization", "satori", "flow",
"freedom"...) This is a fascinating subject, as we all want to have a
better, more fulfilling life! Richard and I have written books on the
subject. We both teach seminars about it (around 700 people attended my
seminars in Poland this summer).

In his book "Virus of the Mind" Richard describes "Level-3", which (in one
of his posts) he admitted to be related to Maslow's self-actualization
(though he never mentioned how). The concept is great! I am vitally
interested in learning more about it! (When you stop pretending you
didn't know that, I want your apology for saying I thought it was a crap).

(2) The second issue is the "crap" itself. Rather then learning more
about "the jump" and sharing our experiences, the dominating theme here
has been that level-3 cannot be understood by "lower" kinds of people.
Richard introduced it with lots of vagueness, ridicule, even accusations,
for example when he was accusing you of insulting him (do you think it was

>In response to my:
>>>On the contrary, I was very specific about why people don't appreciate
>>>the three levels. It's because they're in Level 2.

>>KMO wrote:

>>Richard, that kind of comment really isn't very helpful.

>Geez, you don't have to insult me!

>> Telling people,
>>"You can't see my point because you don't think on my level," will
>>generate more hostility than rational discourse.

>I never said "my level." I said "Level 3."

This is the atmosphere Richard has introduced (and YOU were complaining
about it). Talking about insults: comparing Vicki with a chimp may
be little insulting, don't you think?:

>As I have said (bracing myself for a kick in the seat from Tad), you
>CAN'T use level 2 to analyze level 3. It would be like a Level-1 chimp
>trying to digest a science textbook (by eating it).

The chimp analogy is also interesting because one does not have to ask
chimps for their permission to perform experiments on them. A person who
considers you a "lower level" may... (no, it would be unethical, would

MEMETICAL HYPOCRISY, as described in "Virus of the Mind" is a very
interesting subject. When I touched it -- it was quickly ridiculed by
both Kevin and Richard. I still hope to get to it.

There was one reoccurring theme that the truth is not important. It is
hard to judge without further honest discussion what Richard really means
by it, but I have an impression that this is something quite dangerous.
I would like to find out more about it. Richard is not cooperating:

>>How USEFUL is it to regard truth as unimportant, Richard?
>It has made all the difference, my friend Tad.

David Leeper wrote:
>CoV claims to have some level of rationality and this so-called
>"Level 3" undermines this. It makes us hypocrites.

If there are hypocrites among us, they will make all possible attempts to
hide their techniques. The more light we shed on the case the easier it
will be to discover hypocrisy. Danger! More light, please!

Thank you Kevin for prompting me to think about it,
and please do not put ANYTHING in my mouth.

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