Forwarding Lloyd Miller's Discussion w/F. Mann from New Paradigms List
YOUR PERSONAL POST OFFICE...TRY IT FREE FOR 90 DAYS! It's like having your own post office, right in your home. No more tripsto buy stamps. Meter refills itself. Save up to 20% on postage. Try it free for 90 days. Click here! http://a-albionic.com/postoffice.html
Mann Responded: You made certain points which set me thinking, resulting in my making different points, because I don't agree with your points. To jump to the conclusion that I "missed your point" because I made different points is fallacious thinking.
Lloyd Sez: No, I challenged your ideas and instead of arguing effectively, you simply restated your opions which I already read and understood.
Mann Said: To achieve level-3 freedom it's imperative that you develop the thinking skills and virtues of ultra-reductionism and nominalism.
Lloyd Sez: No, ultra-reductionism considers personal identity and consciousness to be illusions. Nominalism is a dead end that ultimately denies approaching truth through the scientific method.
Mann Said: (I'm not suggesting that you even attempt to advance to level-3 freedom. That may not be appropriate for you. But this discussion may assist others to advance to level-3 freedom.)
Lloyd Sez: The above is a silly, gratuitous insult. The argument from intimidation.
Mann Said: From a level-3 perspective the "Vatican social organism" notion is a negative peme (and "reme" = religious meme) in your head. The basic mental mechanism which gives rise to such pemes/remes is anthropomorphism -- '#TL05AB: ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND RELATED PHENOMENA' <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.htm>.
Lloyd Responds: The Vatican Social Organism is a meme complex in the mind of its members, those individuals subsumed and controlled by the Vatican meme broadcasters. In my mind it is a theory about a possible external existent. Recognizing that a macrobe or social organism exists is not the same as being captured in its meme field.
Lloyd Goes On to Say: Anthropomorphism can be a useful heuristic method in
developing and
clarifying hypotheses and theories. I agree that it does not prove the
truth of any particular theory. Only the scientific method can increase
or decrease an individual's confidence that a theory approaches external
truth.
"Lloyd Miller" <lloyd@a-albionic.com>:
Mr. Mann, I wrote all this to counteract your assumption that collectives are delusional. Contrary to what you have written, the individualist need not deny the reality of collectives in order to refuse to be part of them. Because the collective's pemes and memes are real in the minds of others the collectives are also real. The individualist need not join in. However, this is not easy and requires a lifelong struggle as one can unconsciously accept many memes and pemes. People are born in collectives and rapidly become infested with the memes propagated by the collective's memetic field. Only after decades of stuggle a la Gurdjieff can anyone hope to be an individual in direct contact with the evidence of reality, unfiltered by the social organism.
Denial of the objective existence of collectives is denial of reality, often a vain positing of one's own individuality....just as the individual has a reality beyond the reality of electro-chemically manipulated cells and organs, collectives have an existence beyond the actions of individuals human beings, including "Masters" or the "Ruling Class."
By the way, it is nearly universal that individualists have considered collectives delusional a la Stirner though without being as thorough going. I say unto you: Pretending collectives don't exist doesn't work.
> Mr. Mann, I wrote all this to counteract your
>assumption that collectives are delusional.
Mann Responds: The above isn't my assumption. That which I contend is illusional occurs in people's heads. In other words, it's not "collectives" which are illusional. It's the *notions* in people's heads about certain "collectives existing" -- or even being volitional entities -- that are illusions.
Lloyd Responds: I never said that the mere presence of an idea of a collective in a person's head means the collective exists. By the scientific method we can test which social collectives actually exist by virture of a functioning memetic complex in an operating set of individual minds.
Lloyd Said Earlier: Contrary to what you have written, the individualist
need
not deny the reality of collectives in order to refuse to
be part of them.
Mann Responded: Actually, a distinction needs to be made. I believe that my body exists as a collective. There are real collectives and there are illusions in people's heads.
The individual at level-3 freedom realizes that the fact that millions of people think and behave as if certain "collectives" are real doesn't make "them" so. From the level-3 perspective, in these cases, there's nothing to be part of or not part of. It's an issue of ceasing to think, communicate, and behave like the ontological collectivists (but pretending to do so, when that's deemed appropriate).
Lloyd Responds: As I stated before, if a set of individuals are significantly manipulated by a meme complex which issues from the power center of a social organism, ie. like the Vatican, Washington, Grand Lodge of the Masons, etc. then, I am arguing, that social organism exists. As an individualist, however, of course, I can refuse to be part of it...I can say no to the Borg....there is no need to deny its existence to be free of its memes. Of course, my idea or theory about the existence of any particular macrobe could be wrong. As with any theory only the scientific method can increase or decrease my confidence about the possible existence of any particular macrobe. For instance, I am far more confident that the Vatican and Washington centered macrobes exist than I am of the Grand Lodge of England Masonic macrobe, to say nothing the the mythical [in my opinion] "Bavarian Illuminati" macrobe.
Lloyd Said Earlier: Because the collective's pemes and memes are real in
the
minds of others the collectives are also real.
Mann Responded: This is a fallacious form of argument and phenomenon known as hypostatization -- see '#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak' <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.htm>. It's like arguing that because people have a "Santa Claus" meme in their heads, therefore "Santa Claus is real."
Lloyd Responds: Come on, Mann! You must know I didn't mean that any idea in the mind of an individual creates a reality. Only the scientific method can increase confidence that ideas have external referents.
Mann went on to say: Also it's not the "collective's pemes and memes"; only individual humans have memes/pemes in their minds. (Of course, they also record their memes/pemes and spread them using communication artifices.)
Lloyd Responds: Fine...that is your theory. However, I am suggesting
an alternate theory that may explain our sense data better. The social
organisms (collectives) exist and maintain their power by manipulating its
subsumed
individuals to extend its memes via human communication. Of course,
I think the social organism establishes, spreads, and protects its meme
structure through human intermediaries....though who knows? There
could be other mechanisms as well [Subspace signals or Morphic Resonance?]
Lloyd Said Earlier: The individualist need not join in. However, this not
easy
>and requires a life long struggle as one can unconsciously
>accept many memes and pemes. People are born in collectives
>and rapidly become infested with the memes propagated by the
>collective's memetic field.
Mann Responded: No. People are born on beds in hospitals and homes
(mostly).
The memes they get infected with are propagated by parents,
teachers, preachers, politicians, journalists, etc. -- i.e.,
by individual human beings (often using communication artifices).
Lloyd Responded: Your theory. Mine is that the parents consciously or unconsciously act as agents for the macrobe in imposing memes on their offspring.
Lloyd Said Earlier: Only after decades of struggle a la Gurdjieff can
anyone hope
>to be an individual in direct contact with the evidence of
>reality, unfiltered by the social organism.
Mann Responded: Reality isn't "filtered by the social organism," but by the memes/pemes in the individual mind. Maybe further perusal of 'Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson' (by Gurdjieff), to the point of overcoming the "kundabuffer" is necessary.
Lloyd Responds: Gurdjieff mentions in Tales to His Grandson many times that man unconsciously serves "higher purposes"...in my theory the social organism, Borg, Macrobe, or Metazon.
Lloyd Said Earlier: Denial of the objective existence of collectives is
denial
>of reality, often a vain positing of ones own individuality...
Mann Responded: The level-3 individualist doesn't deny "the objective
existence
of collectives." On the contrary, he contends that the *notion*
of "the objective existence of certain imagined collectives" in
the ontological collectivist's mind is illusional.
Lloyd Responds: Great! It is just a matter of determining which ones are
real and
which ones are not. However, this implies you are really not an
ultra-reductionist
nor a nominalist.
Lloyd Said Earlier: ...just as the individual has a reality beyond the
reality
>of electro-chemically manipulated cells and organs, collectives
>have an existence beyond the actions of individual human beings,
>including "Masters" or the "Ruling Class."
Mann Responded: This is a fallacious argument by analogy. The phemomenon of
my
cells, etc. forming a collective known as my body doesn't imply
that the same phenomenon applies to whatever supposed "collectives"
you care to imagine.
Lloyd Responds: It should be obvious that I was not making an argument,
but only clarifying my theory. Analogy is a valid heuristic method of
developing
and clarifying hypotheses and theories. I never meant to imply and analogy
proves anything...it illustrates. Only the scientific method can increase
or
decrease confidence that a mental representation corresponds to an external
reality
Lloyd Said Earlier: By the way, it is nearly universal that individualists
>have considered collectives delusional a la Stirner
>though without being as thorough going. I say unto you:
>Pretending collectives don't exist doesn't work.
Mann Responded: I agree with you that "pretending collectives don't exist doesn't work." That's why I wouldn't dream of doing so.
In fact, pretending that "collectives exist" is sometimes necessary for optimum survival. I don't argue with the armed cop who thinks he's a "government official enforcing the law." When I think it's appropriate I certainly pretend that "collectives exist."----Frederick Mann
Lloyd's Final Shot: Great! We agree on goals. I would just
ask you to keep my alternate theoretical framework in mind
and see if it doesn't work better than yours in undestanding
and handling reality. I don't have to pretend vicious individual
devouring macrobes exist. I just have to pretend to be part
of them occasionally!
macrobes exist....
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><
> A Growing Selection of A-albionic's Books Can Be Browsed and Purchased
Conveniently in the Shopping Cart at http://a-albionic.com/shopping.html
text in body: subscribe prj <your@email.address>
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Video Finder, Free Catalogs, Links, Sweepstakes, What-Not:
http://www.msen.com/~daugh/store.htm
***********************************