From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 23:58:53 GMT
>From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: Toward a new US-World dialogue
>Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:36:11 -0800
>
>>
>>At 11:42 AM 8/12/02 -0800, you wrote:
>> >I tend to be pessimistic for the same reasons Wade mentions.  Wade's 
>>post
>> >raises an interesting question - why is it that it is only the common
>> >NEGATIVE that stands to unite large numbers of our species instead of a
>> >common good?  Or is that the case?
>> >
>> >I can only refer to my own experiences that when a group comes together
>> >united over a common interest, a hobby for instance, all is well while 
>>the
>> >group remains small.  Perhaps because they have all freely chosen each 
>>other
>> >as members.  But as new members join and the group grows larger, dissent 
>>and
>> >disharmony also seem to increase.  What was a unity of good now shatters
>> >into sects or cliques.  However, let an enemy of that hobby appear and 
>>the
>> >various cliques will unite as never before!  My neighborhood is an
>> >equestrian area that is being shoved out by encroaching suburban
>> >developments.  Horse people are notorious  for their snobbery over their
>> >particular breed.  But now that the ability to even ride or HAVE your 
>>horse
>> >is being threatened, they've all united in a loud voice locally.  People 
>>who
>> >were not speaking to each other mere months ago are now fast allies.
>> >
>> >On another point, IMHO religion is one HUGE blockade to achieving any 
>>kind
>> >of mass unity, also.  As long as people cling tightly to their 
>>religiosity
>> >and identify their "self" with their religion, unless everyone adopts 
>>that
>> >same religion, we're doomed to discord and disharmony.
>> >
>> >I just don't think the sheer numbers of humanity at this time bodes well 
>>for
>> >harmony.  The tribe is too large.
>> >
>> >Virginia
>> >
>> >Murrieta, CA
>> >
>>Good post Virginia
>>
>
>The last guy to try a new religion was L. Ron Hubbard and he doesn't seem 
>to have made anyone happy with his Scientology.
>
>
Would the Raelian's qualify as a religious movement? Church of the 
Subgenius?
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Tue 10 Dec 2002 - 00:00:35 GMT