I honestly think it would be imprudent of me to give more examples of [what I think are] ontology pyramid schemes; readers would either parse them as laughable foibles of the outgroup, and thus write off my meta-level point as trivial, or feel aggressed and compelled to marshal soldiers against my meta-level point to dispute a perceived object-level attack on their ingroup’s beliefs.
I think [something like] this [implicit] reasoning is likely why the Sequences are around as sparse as this post is on examples, and I think it’s wise that they were written that way.
To your second:
There’s nothing logically against an ontology that’s true being the subject of a pyramid scheme, any more than there’s anything logically against the bogus widgets a physical pyramid scheme is selling, actually being inordinately useful. It just generally doesn’t happen.
To your first question:
I honestly think it would be imprudent of me to give more examples of [what I think are] ontology pyramid schemes; readers would either parse them as laughable foibles of the outgroup, and thus write off my meta-level point as trivial, or feel aggressed and compelled to marshal soldiers against my meta-level point to dispute a perceived object-level attack on their ingroup’s beliefs.
I think [something like] this [implicit] reasoning is likely why the Sequences are around as sparse as this post is on examples, and I think it’s wise that they were written that way.
To your second:
There’s nothing logically against an ontology that’s true being the subject of a pyramid scheme, any more than there’s anything logically against the bogus widgets a physical pyramid scheme is selling, actually being inordinately useful. It just generally doesn’t happen.