RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 15:32:23 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics - Part 4"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA11287 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:31:36 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics
    Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:32:23 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEOICIAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    Importance: Normal
    In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017459FC@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    A two in one, Vincent and then Kenneth...

    Vincent:

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Vincent Campbell
    > Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2000 6:56
    > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > Subject: RE: Article, A Solipsistic View On Memetics
    >
    >
    > OK- but how do we measure that beyond each self?
    >
    > That's one problem with solipsism in that you can't empirically
    > test any of
    > its assertions, since whatever you 'find' must be a product of your mind,

    or God... isnt fundamentalism solipsism?...

    > since the world only exists within it.
    >
    > It becomes absurdly reductive.
    >
    > On the other hand I see more clearly Kenneth's idea that memes may act
    > solipsistically, as if there were no other memes but them. But that's a
    > different point.
    >

    gets back to Richard Feynman's concept -- treat every thing as a wave and
    every thing is 'doing its own thing' and the interference patterns create
    reality; ruled by the constructive/destructive dichotomy.

    This comes from an object perspective which then leads to dynamics,
    relational processes.

    In this sense each 'thing' pushes for sameness ('be like me') and the
    interference patterns bring out differences and new sameness sourced in
    dynamics ('be like us?'). The 'God' meme works this way.

    Kenneth:

    note that extending the sameness/difference dichotomy there are FOUR
    contexts from which we analyse:

    (1) sameness in sameness (sensation seeking)
    (2) sameness behind difference (problem solving, scientific viewpoint,
    fact/fiction)
    (3) difference behind sameness (security seeking, moral viewpoint,
    right/wrong)
    (4) difference within difference (identity seeking)

    (we can extend these to eight etc but the above is enough).

    The problem with sameness in sameness is that it is really hard to see!
    everything 'looks' the same! The sensation seeking reflects this 'feeling
    around' :-) Reductionism gets down to this but it is beyond Science in that
    Science demands difference to be able to detect the sameness behind the
    differences. Sensation seeking gets around the 'problem' of all sameness, it
    is like pinching yourself since your body is too sameness biased! too
    self-contained perhaps?

    Difference within difference is perceived as dynamic, all change (patterns
    imply SAMENESS and so sameness behind/within difference). From a typological
    perspective these 'types' deny typology or else see it as something
    'fleeting'...

    1+3 are variations on a theme, as are 2+4.

    memes seem to come out of (2) and (3) where (2) and (3) reflect BOUNDARY
    states (them vs us) etc. They are derived from the 'pure' states of (1) and
    (4).

    Resonance, where there is no need for memes etc is tied to (1). Very gene
    biased or else very well learnt algorithms/formulas such that you get 'mind
    reading'; dove-tailing etc there is no talk just a 'knowing'. Ant
    consciousness :-)

    keep it coming :-)

    best,

    Chris.

    ------------------
    Chris Lofting
    websites:
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond

    ===============================================================
    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 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 14:32:42 BST