>Richard is taking a position that memes do not correspond with objective
>reality--as if memes have a life of their own independent of objective reality.
>This is a corrupt dishonest approach to memetics, as you will see. To show
>another example,
>Richard wrote to Drakir:
>>A fact is nothing more than a meme with universal agreement. That
>>agreement can come and go over time! Fact is just a label we put on a
>>meme, like USDA approval of a side of beef.
You are caught in a bi-polar arguement, which is too simple to represent
this discussion. There is a continuum of possible ideologies with respect
to "objective reality", not simply the two "the is objective reality" and
"there is not". Once can have more or less confidence in this concept.
Richard is correctly (to my view) describing what we think of as "fact" as
a consensus opinion. Some of these opinions are earnestly and extensively
validated and are very useful, significant, and productive. They comprise
what is most valuable in our culture. But we must not limit ourselves in
thinking that the possible is completely expressed in the actual...or that
the actual is completely represented by our perception of it. I have to
agree with David M., in this context you are deliberately reducing a subtle
argument into something easier to attack. To what end? I am not pursuaded
by your arguments...not becuase I am infected with "wrong-thinking" ideas
or because I'm not listening...but becuase you are not addressing Richard's
ideas...you are simply asserting that they lack validity. To what end?
>What David McF is doing here is implying, by his emphasis on the "value"
>of peer
>opinion, is that the energy other people put into a discussion determines
>reality. In other words, content of consciousness determines existence.
I don't think anyone said this. I think are having difficulty detecting
nuance of meaning. You pick an implication out of context and exagerate
it.
> I will not go further into this but I will tell you that Richard Brodie and
>David McFadzean are tricking people in ways that have been used to trick
>millions of people for 2300 years. Corey asked a question once, about whether
>Tad and I are saying Richard is evil. Yes! Richard B. and David McF are
>assholes!
Who are the assholes? Do you think that the internet allows you to violate
basic rules of civility...or do you think that polite consideration of your
fellow humans is also a "wrong-thinking" idea?
My first post to this list was a disagreement with David M. I'm currently
engaged in deconstructing Richard's Levels...eventually I hope he will see
how he himself has become stuck in his own ideology. I am not in league
with them
You are behaving very poorly. Perhaps you are not succeptible to
reprimand...a weakness, not a strength. You need to learn some manners,
though. I have removed a number of unconstructive snide remarks...I'm
suseptible to name calling as well. We all struggle.
Could you please try to consider each person here as an earnest individual,
and not as some evil caricature?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------