Re: solipsistic view on memetics

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Sep 16 2000 - 19:59:51 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: solipsistic view on memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA26112 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:57:34 +0100
    Message-Id: <200009161858.OAA29019@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:59:51 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics
    In-reply-to: <001d01c01f4c$1b210be0$e506bed4@default>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics
    Date sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:03:06 +0200
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Joe E. Dees <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > ..
    > > >
    > > My point here is that human infants are little machines genetically
    > > programmed to transcend their programming, and to become free
    > > and unique individuals rather than have their responses
    > > circumscribed by species-wide instincts.
    >
    > << Joe, are you saying here, that is essence there is no collectiviness ?
    > That we, their parents inflick collectiviness on our children ? Interesting
    > !>>
    >
    Our children internalize the difference, which they learn from their
    primary caregivers, between responsive others and the
    resonsiveless general environment into a distinction between
    psyche and soma. Both a social and a physical environment is
    necessary for self-emergence (check feral children for empirical
    evidence of this).
    >
    > It just means that there is no essence-in-general for selfhood, and each
    > human self-consciousness spends its life constructing its own
    > essence-in-particular.
    >
    > << So, each of us is a solipsistc being because our memes spent their lives
    > constructing self- consciousness for their host in order to propagate
    > themselves,
    > that is the memes, further ?>>
    >
    No, self-consciousness, choice and free will are necessary to
    human memetic evolution; otherwise there could be no directed
    modification of l-memes (within a mind), and there could be no
    selection between alternative versions created by such
    modification, neither could there be propagation and
    acceptance/rejection decisions in the g-meme (between minds)
    arena. In fact, even multiple arbitrary languages, rather than single
    instinctually circumscribed closed systems, reqiire self-
    consciousness for their creation/invention, and language (in the
    broad definition) is the means of memetic propagation.
    >
    > Our minds ARE esconsed in the evolving world, AND
    > > an evolving representation of the world resides in each mind. And
    > > while it is true that a representation of the world is not, and can
    > > never be, the world itself, as the map is never the territory, we
    > > yet experientially refine our individual maps throughout our lives to
    > > most closely match the common territory (and the individual
    > > aspects of it) which they represent.
    >
    > << Does this not mean, IMHO that our mind and therefor our memes are
    > working in a solipsistic way...the representation of the world resides in
    > each
    > mind and I suppose that those representations are in each mind different due
    > to
    > variation and selection of affects...!? >>
    >
    Those variations vary due to the fact that Peter cannot be Paul; we
    each possess a unique spatiotemporal perspective upon our
    common world. The logical incogerencies of discredited mentally
    masurbatory pseudosystems such as solipsism or its correlative
    opposite abstract ideal extreme, no-selfism, do not enter into the
    concrete experiential reality of the situation at all.
    > Many regards,
    >
    > Kenneth
    >
    > ( I am, because we are)
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 19:58:50 BST