Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA00768 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:52:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A83@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: the conscious universe Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:50:03 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Bob,
>So, we have the obvious circumstances of
>memeplexes, such as a religious or political belief, whereby the
>"believers" say that they agree with each other but usually only to
a
>degree. This used to be demonstrated by having people in a circle
>"define a meaning" and then asking everyone who disagreed with the
>explicit definition to step inward. Usually, the circle would
become
>smaller and smaller because of the uniqueness of the individual's
>beliefs, interpretations, or expressions.
>This shows why there are "different strokes for different folks"
even
>when the written or spoken provocations, etc., appear identical.
"Viva
>la differénce"
To some degree true, but there also has to be a degree of similarity to
warrant individuals choosing (or being compelled by emotion or whatever) to
associate themselves with others to the point of life or death as we've seen
so frequently in history (and currently of course in various places).
Surely the argument is what makes some ideas have enough consistency of
appeal and content to maintain themselves across a large group of people?
-whether it be religious beliefs, political ideologies, or other things,
such as nationalism.
This again reflects the inherent paradox that we're in of recognising the
degree to which absolute objectivity is impossible, and that therefore
there's always some degree of subjectivity in perception etc., but also
recognising (assuming one isn't a solipsist, or epistemical skeptic) that
many human behaviours indicate assumed (or agree) intersubjective agreement.
How do we ever agree amongst ourselves?
That's the problem with the subjectivist outlook in my view, since it denies
the evident consensus in human behaviour e.g. the current Serbian
revolution- why did it happen at that point in time. Why did all of those
people suddenly decide they were mad as hell and weren't going to take it
anymore? Even given apparent accounts of highly organised and planned
efforts to storm the parliament, many tens of thousands of other people just
showed up. Now I'm sure many of them (if perhaps not all) would say they
made individual personal choices to march and protest etc., but how come
those decisions all came at the same time?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robert (Bob) Grimes
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2000 6:16 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: the conscious universe
>
> <<File: grimes.vcf>>
> Folks,
>
> Again, I thought that most of us had come to the conclusion, way back
> there, that the meme existed "only in the brain," but that the "meme
> seed or token" was transmitted in many different ways and that this
> partially explained the "evolution" of the meme. That is, since we
> cannot communicate explicitly (exactly) and all of our perception is
> "subjective," the meme differs in each of us. Thus, when we
> "re-execute" the meme, it may come out pretty close to the original,
> especially if of a simple nature, but usually there will always be the
> changes due to subjective influences of the individual. Thus, the meme
> will evolve both in effect on the recipient and subsequent
> instantiations of the meme.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Bob
>
> --
> Bob Grimes
>
> Jacksonville, Florida
>
> http://members.aol.com/bob5266/
> http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/bobinjax/
> http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
>
> Bob5266@aol.com robert.grimes@excite.com
> bobinjax@hotbot.com Bobgrimes@zdnetmail.com
>
> Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is
> more in control...
>
> Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
>
>
===============================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 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 12:53:48 BST