Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA18666 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:23:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.31.29.83] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:15:50 +0000 Subject: Re: question about memes From: Steve Drew <srdrew_1@hotmail.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B8BAB805.341%srdrew_1@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200203171417.OAA17369@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2002 21:17:56.0297 (UTC) FILETIME=[35022B90:01C1CDF9] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Kenneth
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:44:06 +0100
> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
> Subject: Re: question about memes
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philip Jonkers <philipjonkers@prodigy.net>
>> Thanks for your explanations Kenneth. I recognize that Yates' actions were
>> understandable
>> in her own eyes. But I don't think one can call them rational unless you
> are
>> willing to
>> accept a more subjective definition of the word. To me the being rational
> is
>> synonymous
>> to a natural or logical code of conduct with a minimum use of extrasensory
>> assumptions or
>> basis. Ideally rather than usually perhaps, the rational mindset is owned
> by
>> the majority
>> of a population.If not, the population is likely to ultimately perish or
>> suffer as their ill-founded
>> actions are not compatible with nature or (rivaling) groups which do
> happen
>> to be rational.
>> Take the nazis as an example.
>
> Philip,
>
> I think taking the Nazis is a bad example.
> In Germany of the early '30 and early ' 40 the majority owned the rational
> mindset but did choose for Hitler !
> In their way_ war was the only option left open_ of course, the choise
> was largely induced by the Nazi- propaganda machine, but nevertheless !
IIRC, Hitler did not get an outright majority, but was the largest minority
and brow beat Hindenberg into giving him the Chancellery, followed by
outlawing any party that would not tacitly support him, with Hindeburg
rubber stamping the decision.
>
> And to pre- suppose that the rivaling groups ( Europe) was ' rational' in
> the ' 40, I doubt that ! Seen now of course.
> Germany had lost for a great deal its social and cultural capital and was
> in more sense than others an outcast due to what happened 20 years
> earlier.
In some respects yes, though this was due to the need to pay reparation that
France insisted upon and that the UK and USA were not keen upon. The
reparations and the Depression broke the German economy causing resentment
and poverty. Hitler actually thought the UK could become allied to his
course against the Soviets.
> OTOH, Europe was in complete turmoil, the ways by which German
> politicians were thinking was greatly influenced by guys like Heidegger,
> Nietzsche, Smitt, Jaspers. The Weimar- politics were not forgotten !
> To survive, the German people choose the best, possible option to them.
They did indeed, though with 20/20 hindsight there choice was flawed.
Something similar can be seen in Zimbabwe, for example. Not wishing to delve
too deeply in to the history, Mugabe used the land issue and colonialism to
get behind him a hardcore of supporters in the same way Hitler used the
Versailles treaty.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
Regards
Steve
===============================================================
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 17 2002 - 21:45:53 GMT