>Aren't "Levels" more of ideology than memes? If you are unreflective
>than
>you have no ideology. If you have one ideology then you are "Level 2"
>or
>possessing ideology. If you are level 3 you are "beyond ideology".
>The
>level system sounds a little like Zen to me:
Yes. When you are reading my book, you will notice I discuss Zen as it
relates to consciousness.
>If the thinking is constructed of memes then how does one think without
>or
>beyond them?
Although our bodies are constructed of atoms, yet we are something
beyond them.
> Level 3 seems empty (and, in this, is also like some
>interpretations of enlightenment)...but you offer it as a pragmatic
>starting point for further temporal progress. This fusion is dizzy;
>making
>a more handy buck is not my idea of a good reason for focusing ones Ki.
When you are paging delightedly through Chapter 12 of VIRUS OF THE MIND,
enjoying the last few sips of the fine wine you had been saving for this
very occasion, you will understand.
>
>I feel the desire, as many have, to say something like "Hey, dude, I'm
>on
>level Pi. Not only are we .14 and then some arbitrary units
>higher...but
>the cafeteria here serves better food." I'm not on level Pi, I'm
>confused...as I've been most of my life. Actually, I'm no longer
>uncomfortable with confusion.
Sounds like you're on Level 3 to me.
>
>Is is possible to be Level 3 some of the time? Is it possible to be
>"limited level 3" in which you freely exchange between a small number
>of
>worldviews or "Victorian level 3" in which you hold a lot of
>contadictory
>viewpoints but believe that they will all sort out into your personal
>ideology in the end? What if I believe contradictory things but don't
>notice? Is level behavior situation dependent (i.e, can I be a level 3
>philosopher but a level 2 chemist and a level 1 beer drinker?)
I don't think, Reed that you can "go home again." Reed, some part of me
misses that comfortable feeling of powerlessness I used to have when I
was trapped in the box of my own memetic model. But the other parts
quickly beat it into submission. =)
>
>Why did you find it necessary to combine a discussion of memetics with
>this
>play for moral reletivism? Do you see an understanding of memetic and
>reletvism as being intimately connected?
I'm not a proponent of moral relativism. I don't even know what it is.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>