Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA13301 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:26:39 GMT Message-ID: <000901bf86e4$58af1d40$4e03bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0002201935210.20644-100000@marlowe.umd.edu> Subject: Re: meaning in memetics Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:48:32 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hello everyone,this is my message that I couldn't get through.I wish to
comply
because I think what Robin asked is still relevant to the discussion held on
this
list.It is even of importance in some extend to the discussion about the
monkeys in Kenia.These ignored their own individual interest and stoned a
herdsman in
favour of their evolutionary concern_that is their own survival!!
In addition to RF asking questions I permit myself to intervene because
Robins
suggestion lies in the line of mine main interest point.
I wish to answer Robins question with,YES people will ignore their own indi-
vidual interests in favour of evolutionary concerns!
YES_if properly instructed_that is to be able to compare the pro's and cons
of ethical dissensions which people face.
Let me explain my standpoint on this issue under form of an extented quote.
See further at section SNIP 2
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence H. de Bivort <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 1:43 AM
Subject: RE: meaning in memetics
>
> >>>Did you really mean to say that our minds play a role in guiding the
blind
> >>>forces of evolution?
>
> LdB:
> >>Well, of course our minds play a role in guiding our evolution. See our
> >>development of tools and linguistics.
>
> Robin Faichney:
> >Sorry, but it seems to me that the *whole* point of memetics is to
> analyse such
> >developments from the point of view of the meme, just as Dawkins' showed
in the
> >The Selfish Gene how biological evolution is best understood by asking
what
> >benefits the gene.
>
> LdB:
> Disagree. The point of memetics is to study memetics, whether that
> is from the POV of a meme or otherwise. Dawkins made a contribution to
> biological evolution, and a seminal one to memetics, but we need not
> accept his view as controlling if we feel there are additionally
> productive ways of investigating things.
>
> And, as I have suggested before, I do not think it is useful to insists
> that memes must be modelled on genes, but I won't go into that again.
>
> SNIP
> LdB:
> >>And we are learning how to do this
> >>consciously, that is, deliberately doing things to affect our
evolutionary
> >>development.
>
> Robin Faichney:
> >There's an enormous difference between learning how such stuff works in
> >principle, and putting it into practice. In particular, are you
suggesting
> >that people will ignore their own individual interests in favour of
> >evolutionary concerns?
SNIP 2
First,properly instructed is a heavy definition_understand,instructing
people means in my way of thinking without any form of compulsion.
Second,the manner in doing so contains education,social welfare,politics,
intellectual training and EI.
Third,the problem with the above mentioned tools to a better development of
the human mind is based on what we are debating here,MEMETICS_most
people don't understand the principle (in a memetic sense) of how their own
mind works.
To let people ' understand ' that they must change their ways of thinking
is
gonna be a work requiring time and hard labour.
But,back to the question of RF:
People are born with their own genetic code and probably with a
meme-
tic code,that is the way we stand for what is enclosed in our culture.That
is,how we think politically,socially,religiously,etc.
That means,if our religiously inspired society demands that the sexual
intercourse between man and woman results in having children,than is
abortion,
homosexuality,incest and rape something we don't ' understand ',we don't
see
their meaning.
Problems begin where either way a couple decides to abort their unborn child
or where the society ' wants ' to intervene in the ' quality of life '_that
is,a moral
dilemma (abortion or not) becomes a social problem if something goes wrong.
That is,is a society in the end willing to pay all the costs when the child
turn out
to be a disabled person,where on the othere hand there are giving
possibilities
to overcome the painfull situation!?
The medical technology is so far advanced that a concept like
humane
selection can't stay in the dark forever.We have to choose_morality (and
that
is in some sense the way in which we are ordered to think),just as the
culture
wherein the morality is applied,must optimize (as a system) the happiness of
humankind.
That is,we must boost people to another level of responsibility,the system
has
to boost people to think as autonomic human beings,the system has to propose
people to handle in a rational way to what is been found into their genes
and
(memetical) wishes,and in those of others.
Such a way of thinking leaves the door open for more creativity and
advise,for
notions about adoption,for concepts as selective abortion/eugenetics/artifal
insemination/gentechnology and humane selection.
We must bend in the context as mentioned above towards the
possibility
that we must let people choose for the benefit of a greater
importance_(evolu-
tionary concerns are here the decline of the gene- and memepool and the
social
welfare).
To pursue personal satisfaction on a social front is anyway an admirable
ambi-
tion,but if the efforts are at the costs of his/hers health/responsibility
and at the
cost of your family,children and friends than you must be Protected
against
yourself,that is_YOU MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST WHAT CAN BE
FOUND IN YOUR GENES/MEMES AND AGAINST WHAT IS GE_
NETICAL/MEMETICAL INHERITABLE.
Noone wants to be murderer,but if murder is one of your genetical/memetical
traits,than you must be protected,not the ' removal ' of the gene(s)/meme(s)
is
here in anyway the priority,but indeed of how the authorities,social welfare
ser-
vices,social powers and the whole of the welfare state are (memetical) up to
their task to push someone with for example a murder-gene in a specific
direction so that ' mistakes ' can't take place.
Besides,that is a possibility,a suggestion to people to ignore their own
indivi-
dual interests,a suggestion to move people to do something against what they
can/will tranfer genetically/memetically.Besides,it is afeter all better
than that
the society forces you to act,isn't it!?
Of course,I already can hear the remarks,it begins with children
and it
ends up in something like Auschwitz.Nothing of the sort!!
We must choose and stand up for our own individual rights!
If you choose to be a murderer or a rapist than all the consequences are
yours;
(the society will try to protect yourself and others against your deeds),but
any-
how in the end if you commit murder you will be punished.
If,on the other hand,you take up the responsibility and you let the
community
treat you,you will be awrded as a full member of society.
And what concers the last remarks,they are in my view old fashion,they are
old ideas_people are hooked up at their conservative way of thinking.
There is no place for new ideas_and there lies an enormous task ahead for
us,
the memeticists.
Whatever the meaning in memetics now is,it is based_literally wrapped up in
a
conformitive ideology_we change the way of how we think about (old) ideas,
it would be better if we also change the ideas in the same process.
Than it would be certainly evolution!!
This is translated from my own writings.I hope the waiting for this message
was worth while!!
References/
Lamarck Jean-Baptiste/Philosophie Zoologique
Edward O. Wilson/Consilience.The unity of knowledge.
Michael Derzak Adrema/Primal Renaissance
Aaron Lynch/Thought Contaigon and Mass Belief
Rietdijk Wim/Special gathering Filosofie Magazine 99/4
Regards,
Kenneth
> LdB:
> "Individual interests" is not a term that offers sufficient distinctions
> to tackle the question. Can you define how you use the term a bit further?
Of course,what Lawrence says here is correct,individual interests is not a
term
that offers effects to tackle the problem_Individual interests are
genetical/meme-
tical driven and they can be in a collective way be directed.Genetical
individual
interests are mentioned above in my text,we must be protected against them.
Memetical individual interests are something else,they only emerge in some
kind of (re)action,that is if they face some level wherein they have
meaning.
I can't find a better suitable term right now,but individual interests are
those
effects sortened out by our genes/memes so that our organism stays alive.
Kenneth
> Lawrence de Bivort
> The Memetics Group
>
>
> |---------------------------------------------|
> | ESI |
> | Evolutionary Services Institute |
> | "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
> | 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
> | (301) 320-3941 |
> |---------------------------------------------|
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 20:26:48 GMT