Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA00846 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:20:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017459A7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Changing threads/ American Nationalism !? Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:17:43 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Lot's of stuff here. I'll try and offer a few comments.
You said-
> > If we all suppose Darwin was right, and we gave him all the regards that
> > goes with it_and on the other hand half of the worlds population thinks
he
> > got it all wrong,...where is the benefit of Darwinism then !?
> > There is some contradiction somewhere, no !?
Adding to Derek's point, Darwinism is also useful in retrodiction- offering
the most satisfactory theory so far as to the origin of species. No theory
before Darwin's could plausibly explain dinosaurs, for example, (bit of a
guess here, as I've no idea if Lamarck had anything to say about dinosaurs),
and certainly the judeo-christian-muslim creation stories could not, and
cannot account for them (oh, wait a minute, don't they claim they now claim
they were all killed in the great flood? yeah well...).
Half the world may reject it as a theory because it undermines their
existing belief-systems- or at least it does if they are fundamentalist
believers in their religious texts. Much the same thing happened with the
Copernican world system, which many people worked out was more accurate than
the Ptolemaic system, but so much was at stake in this that lives were
literally on the line over accepting/refuting this view (most obviously in
Galileo's case where the Vatican priests refused to see what was evident
through the telescope- or many indeed have simply been unable to see because
their world-view wouldn't allow it), and it took many, many years to become
accepted.
You Said-
> > IMHO, surely you can use a theory for the benefit you want to obtain,
but
> > you do more harm with interpretating the theory than just following it,
in
> > doing that you scoop out the mere sense of what is said...what is the
point
> > then anyway to set up a theory if everybody else is using it for their
own
> > convience !?
What matters with a theory is its inherent retrodictive or predictive power-
in other words does it explain a previous phenomena or predict a phenomena
yet to happen with any degree of satisfaction. What often happens, though,
is that theories get attached to their originators and then you get
arguments from authority, or worse from association to authority, rather
than arguments from theory. Religions work in the latter two ways, with
arguments from authority (god told me to do it), and from association to
authority (the priest told me to do it). The trouble is, quite a lot of
other areas of our life work the same way (e.g. journalism, as last year we
saw reports saying things like "Nato sources say it wasn't a civilian
convoy that they blew up, but an armed convey of Serb militia"). An
additional problem of this is that the theory of that authority source is
usually also mis-understood and mis-used (e.g. social Darwinism).
The problem is that theories can be abused, does that mean we shouldn't
disseminate them to others? Memetics is a classic example, in that Dawkins
did not intend and entire generation of thinking about memes when he came up
with the idea at the end of 'The Selfish Gene', anymore than Edward Wilson
intended the controversy over sociobiology caused by the last chapter of his
seminal book.
Criticism and mis-use by others is something you have to anticipate and be
ready to deal with, otherwise there is no point to formulating theory (or at
least in telling anyone else about it). Of course one element of meme
theory would say that we are compelled to pass on theories regardless of
whether or not they are likely to be understood correctly, used correctly
and regardless of the personal consequences for the originator of the
theory.
As to your point about key people/moments in nation's sense of identity,
well yes I think that's a factor. The problem with the A-bombs in Japan,
however, is that the survivors (I believe they're called hibakusha) although
able to get on with their lives have always been regarded rather as pariahs
in Japan (a bit like Vietnam vets in the USA)- perhaps because they are
living reminders of defeat. with any defining moment, there will be groups
of people excluded, either by the majority or by their own choice (the death
of Princess Diana in the UK is an excellent example- to have been here
during that week or so you would have thought the entire nation was in
mourning, when at least half couldn't have cared less, except in the simple
sense of having sympathy for two young boys who'd lost a mother. In fact
where I work there was a bit of ambulance chasing as everyone realised it
was going to be a major mediated national event, and as such we raced around
buying up lots of papers, and taping every spare minute of programming,
since it was all very useful research/teaching material!). So even in such
moments, there can be a dissonance for many that prevent anything but a
superficial unity, but I take your point.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kenneth Van Oost
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:08 am
> To: memetics
> Subject: Re: Changing threads/ American Nationalism !?
>
>
> > > Vincent, some ramblings...
> > >
> > > > A lesser, but related
> > > > problem, has been that of the Cornish people, in the South-West of
> > > England,
> > > > who also regard themselves as an historically distinct nation, they
> even
> > > > have that most powerful of national memes a flag (like Sweden's flag
> > only
> > > > with a black background and a white cross) but I doubt much will
> come
> of
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > << Same thing is happening in Holland where the Frisian people regard
> > > themselves more Frisian than European. They still speak their own
> > language,
> > > even they have their television shows where problems regarding their
> being
> > > are been argued. I think even they have their flag, though...
> > > I think in the future that the three most nothern provinces (that is
> > > Frisian-land,
> > > Groningen en Dhrente) will seperate themselves from the rest of
> Holland.
> > > Not only because of cultural differences but also because of
> economical
> > > benefits (gas, agriculture,etc.) Regions are beginning to understand
> their
> > > value for the greater good and they want for their efforts more money,
> > more
> > > political or social rights...In the long term, a dangerous way...>>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why, for example, are American creationists so
> > > > vitriolic in their efforts to prevent evolutionary theory being
> taught
> > in
> > > > schools? Is it simply a matter of fundamentalists evangelism, or
> given
> > > > America's tendency to regard itself as God's own nation, is there an
> > > element
> > > > of concern about the social cement of America being eroded by ideas
> like
> > > > evolution?
> > >
> > > << That is just the issue of that program on BBC World which I
> mentioned
> > in
> > > my previous post. The problem is not one of todays generations, but
> goes
> a
> > > long way back.At the very early start of Darwinism America was against
> it.
> > > You can read this in the link on one of my previous posts...
> > > That www.hcc.hawaii.edu and you can link than further on...
> > >
> > > In that respect the following question,
> > >
> > > If we all suppose Darwin was right, and we gave him all the regards
> that
> > > goes
> > > with it_and on the other hand half of the worlds population thinks he
> got
> > it
> > > all
> > > wrong,...where is the benefit of Darwinism then !?
> > > There is some contradiction somewhere, no !?
> > >
> > > > It seems very evident in theories that deny
> > > > history (Baudrillard saying the gulf war never happened) or deny
> reality
> > > in
> > > > absolutist relativism (Irigary saying E equals mc squared is
> sexist).
> > > That
> > > > is not to say that their ideas are all rubbish or irrelevant, indeed
> to
> > > some
> > > > extent they prove the hypothesis about the historicity inherent in
> > > theory,
> > > > which is an important point that some of them are actually writing
> > about.
> > > > Their views reflect those of people living in a particular time and
> > place
> > > > and represent their efforts to try and deal with the world they find
> > > > themselves in, and they can only do so by abstracting it to the
> point
> > > where
> > > > their views become self-sustaining and empirically untestable
> > > [Incidentally
> > > > without wishing to set him off again, IMO I think Chris Lofting does
> the
> > > > same thing with his theory].
> > >
> > > << Baudrillard is mentioned in some Review papers of Susan Greenfields
> > > program Brain Story. Adepts of the Christian faith argue with the same
> > > words against Professor Greenfields statements. That is Baudrillard
> > > is used by both sides to get it right.
> > >
> > > Just rambling aroung here, though...
> > > But if you want to talk about the issue you mentioned above, please by
> all
> > > means...it is of great interest...see my previous post, I did
> begun...>>
> > > For the reviews please check out
> > >
> > > www.damaris.org/dcsc/readingroom/2000/brainstory/brainstory 1.htm
> > > There is also a review on Pinkers book somewhere in there...
> > >
> > > > Sorry, drifting off topic again. I think what I'm trying to say is
> that
> > > > there is an inherent weakness in the notion of community (of
> whatever
> > > size)
> > > > when it is constructed out of memes- it is alwasy vulnerable to
> > competing
> > > > memes. Japan might be a good example here, since it has been able
> to
> > > adapt
> > > > itself very rapidly and successfully in the post-war period (at
> least
> > > > economically anyway), might this have something to do with the
> > homogeneity
> > > > of the ethnic population of Japan which is very high? Practices and
> > > > attitudes have changed to varying degrees, but notions of Japanese
> > > identity
> > > > remain extremely strong (and probably, although I'm not sure exactly
> how
> > > you
> > > > would measure it, stronger than in countries such as the UK and the
> > USA).
> > >
> > > << I think the determining factor was the atomb bomb, still each year
> the
> > > Japanese people feel the pain and the heartburn. Like in England I
> said
> > > after
> > > Lady Di died, but you can 't get that every year...We have to find a
> > factor
> > > by which we are all connected...like in Belgium the White Mars, but
> like
> I
> > > said that is something of one day...
> > > I think what Americans keeps together is JFK, in some sense the nation
> was
> > > decapitated, in a sense the loss is still working through...that is,
> each
> > > president
> > > is compared with JFK, and each president candidate wishes to take some
> of
> > > JFK legacy into his of hers campaign...see Clinton about that, in many
> > ways
> > > !!
> > > You can argue with the same principle about Father Stalin in the USSR,
> > > people are still afraid when they hear his name...on the other hand
> the
> > > Russian
> > > Orthodox Church declared Nicolas I and his family sacred, so...it is
> how
> > you
> > > look at it I suppose...
> > >
> > > With the murder on JFK, America lost somehow a part of itself and the
> > > country is searching for that bit ever since...seperate groups are
> > searching
> > > in
> > > their own direction with their own means and goals. I hope for them
> they
> > > will find what they are looking for, but I doubt it !!
> > > IMHO I think the search will eventually devided the USA because,
> > memetical,
> > > the seperate groups have outlived eachother, in a sense they are all
> kinds
> > > of
> > > different people...>>
> > >
> > > > Anyway, go on rambling !!
> > >
> > > Many regards,
> > >
> > > Kenneth
> > >
> > > ( I am, because we are) much more
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 13:21:06 BST