Re: virus: Re: Level 3

David Leeper (
Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:36:10 +0000

Ken Pantheists wrote:
> David Leeper wrote:
> Are you saying that the so-called "Level 3" is a union of the last
> 3 rows on the table? If this is so, how do you reconcile the often
> nihilist "Post-Modern Thought" with "Having a Purpose"? Or, on the
> otherhand, is the so-called "Level 3" like Hinduism, possessing a
> definition so broad that it is bound to contain some truth?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose I am.
> Your table is good. It expresses your point of view.
> I do not have a table. Does that make me wrong, or you more right than
> me?

Absolutly! : )

> David Leeper:
> I do object to defining something with hazy or invalid definitions,
> asking money for it, and refering to those who disagree as "Chimps"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ME: I honestly think you are putting words in people's mouths.

I don't think so, even KMO jumped on Brodie about that stuff.

> David Leeper:
> Social Reasoning accepts the types of arguments that Logic rejects.
> Examples: Personal attacks, appeals to power or charisma, democracy.
> Social Reasoning rejects the types of arguments that Logic accepts.
> Example: Logic, math, et. al. seen as boring, deceptive and out of
> touch with one's day to day life.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Again, I feel compelled to point out the high level of construction in
> your statement. Do you see that it is necessarily contrary? I would say,
> what is the difference between social reasoning and logical reasoning?
> Let's just throw this into the memetics blender (the memetomatic?).
> Whirrr.... Whether it is socail or logical, it's still just a meme.

Yes, but these classifications of memes act differently from each other,
as I pointed out above. To say it's _just_ a meme is to ignore some
valuable analysis on their behaviors.

> David Leeper:
> But if you present some term and say "It's a dog", then later you
> say "It's a rock" and then later say "It's a mathematical formula" you
> _are_ contradicting yourself.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In that particular case, I absolutely would be. But dogs and rocks are
> things and mathematical formulas are languages.
> Some people would say that democracy is a thing. And in defining it
> they would contradict themselves many times. Yet it does not prevent
> them from using it as a meme.

The basis of democracy is people vote to elect their leaders. What's the
basis of Level 3? Its been _months_ now and still no solid answer.

> I think democracy is beyond thingness, even beyond being a language--
> its memeness, however, allows us to grab a chunk of it by the tail and
> actually talk about it. See how it is _used_. Like level 3.
> Now, if you are *really* concerned about the existence of level three. I
> would caution you to analyse how real it is for *you*... real enough to
> make you hate it, real enough to make you feel slighted, real enough to
> make you compete in debunking it.

I never said there was no meme called Level 3. I said that such a meme is
poorly defined, sold, and used as a basis to insult people.

> If it were a painting, you have spent a lot of time painting the
> negative space. Which only helps define it in the long run.

The _very_ long run, months now.

> I have never met Richard... I admire his work, and I think he his a sly
> dog.
> He is using a super powered meme on you.

A bit of an overstatement I think. I think the energy has gone out of this
topic, although it pops up from time to time.

> Whether you agree with level three or not, level three is using you.
Really? ;->

David Leeper
Homo Deus  
1 + 1 != 2