Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA08743 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:33:36 GMT From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:30:06 -0800 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJIEALFOAA.richard@brodietech.com> 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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B7A@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Teaching a knowledge-acquisition tool is exactly as memetic as teaching
dates in history, religious rituals, or sexual techniques.
There are only three possibilities for how people come to believe things:
1. The belief is innate, like a Jungian archetype.
2. The belief is a Dennett "Good Trick" and is something people tend to come
up with on their own given a certain set of preconditions.
3. The belief is transmitted from others sharing the belief.
Most often two or three methods are combined. Memes encompass more than
simple beliefs... you must include attitudes, strategies, names, models, and
so on: all the software of the mind.
I dropped out of Harvard to accept a prestigious and lucrative job at
Microsoft, not to get away from any perceived wrong.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
Vincent Campbell
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:02 AM
To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
If I understand you correctly, does this mean you dropped out of Harvard
because you thought they were trying to make you believe things, rather than
providing knowledge -acquisition tools?
Of course the problem with the education system is precisely that people
think they should be places where people are taught what to believe rather
than provide skills for making their own minds up- whether it be efforts in
the UK to stop homosexuality being included in sex education lessons (in the
belief that you can 'learn' to be gay at school), or efforts in the US to
get the Ten Commandments plastered in every school in the belief it'll stop
kids shooting each other (a- which, as we know they do far more infrequently
than people think, and b- would be better dealt with by gun control).
As I say I think it's in the very specific sense of a belief as a physical
occurrence in the brain that is problematic in transmission terms, because
it is likley to be highly varied between individuals. Doctrines, like the
ten commandments for example, on the other hand are simple physical and
manifestly transmittable (although as Michael Moore hilariously pointed out,
many of the congressmen supporting the commandments in schools campaign,
couldn't remember what many of them were, or their order). [This reminds me
of one of the best jokes in Mel Brooks' 'The History of the World' when
he's playing Moses carrying the tablets down the mountain saying 'God has
given me these 15-' (drops and breaks one on the ground) '-these 10
commandments'.]
So if I'm not getting myself all in knots here, I do think religions are
memes, but not their associated beliefs. There is too much variability in
individuals' extent and nature of belief to argue that it is that aspect
which transmits, for my money.
Perhaps there's a qualitative distinction here between religions and other
systems, say education. Perhaps for religions to have noticeable personal
consequences (noticeable to the self, that is) belief is an important
element, where it may not be for something like education. After all do
people "believe" in reading or writing, in the same sense as believing in
God?
Perhaps belief isn't essential to get anything out of religions either. You
can appraise the arguments and doctrines and choose the sensible ones and
chuck out the stupid ones.
I think the emphasis on belief is mis-placed, it's not essential for
transmission of religions, or for many other cultural systems. Belief may
even be a side-effect of memetic tranmission, and indication of its
ill-effecy on an individual, in the same way that ardent sports fans deny
the reality of sporting events (e.g. Clemens' should have been thrown out of
game 2 for chucking his bat at Piazza, then we'd have won the series, those
damn Yankees!), or addiction to things like gambling. Maybe outward
protestations of religious belief really is a sign to start laying off the
communion wine.... After all a lot of religious rituals are a product of
intense shortages or contamination of food or water, and thus a combination
of desperation and nutritional deficiencies, alongside unavoidable
misunderstanding of causality, may have contributed to major ritual efforts
in human history (e.g. the Nazca lines, rain dances, witch hunts etc. etc.).
I have a feeling I've said much of this before, so I'll shut up at this
point.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Richard Brodie
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2000 3:02 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
>
> You agree with his rejection of belief transmission?
>
> What are schools for?
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.liontales.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
> Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:26 AM
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
>
> I don't quite know what you're going on about here Joe, not being a party
> to
> the other list, but I like the term 'memebotic'.
>
> Linking to Wade's posted piece about "elevation", it strikes me that there
> are particular rituals that most religious doctrines require, that seem to
> make people more vulnerable to this state of total, uncritical acceptance
> of
> a particular belief regardless of its abject incorrrectness. Things like
> prayer and meditation, but also things like dance (whirling dervishes,
> native american rain dances etc.), fasting (I believe zen monks, in one
> temple at least, have to undergo a long period without food or water, very
> risky indeed) and, of course, drug taking in shamanic rituals.
>
> I've been re-reading Derek's JEMIT article, and still generally agree with
> his rejection of belief transmission, per se, but perhaps it's an indirect
> result of doctrines that avow practices which in turn may be likely to
> produce religiosity in those that undertake them.
>
> It's such an, unfortunately, widespread feature of belief systems, it must
> come from somewhere- and it's certainly not from any of them being "true".
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Joe E. Dees
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2000 1:39 am
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> >
> > Date sent: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 17:32:19 +0000
> > From: "Everett E. ALLie" <specieup@safari.net>
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > Hello, Joe, long time since I've heard from you. I hope you're
> > well. As to Hall:
> > > No, he is a very open friendly fellow, however, he's very insistent
> > about what
> > > existence really is. So far, no one has been able to show him is
> > wrong.
> > >
> > No one can show a blind man what color is, either, and he is
> > inclined to dismiss it as a delusion held by mistaken interlocuters,
> > much as you dismiss GR and QM. At the same time, one can
> > never convince fanatics whose self-concept, self-esteem and sense
> > of self-worth have been irretrieveably bound up with the validity of a
> > truth-claim concerning some obnoxious flatulence or other. You
> > have reduced your now one-dimensional self to the status of the
> > epistemic Jehovah's Witness of Hallianism, and that fact does not
> > render it any more correct than does a JWs' belief validate their
> > particular monomyth. There is no proof for Hallianism, and
> > overwhelmingly preponderant experimental evidence, fulfilled
> > predictions, and technological utility for the science it futilely
> > attempts to supplant. You remind me of a fellow on the memetics
> > list named Chris Lofting, whose hebephrenic avalanche of word
> > salad and complete ignorance (in both senses of the word) of
> > conclusively refuting counterexamples, combined with a
> > fascistically relentless 'true believer' cheerfulness, sustains him in
> > the quixotic crusade that all mind is composed of dichotomies and
> > recursions; when presented with irreduceable trichotomies, such
> > as the sign-signifier-signified structure of signification, the focus-
> > field-fringe structure of conception/perception, or the amplitude-
> > frequency-waveform structure of distally originating stimuli (in vision
> > this translates to brightness-color-shape; in audition to loudness-
> > pitch-timbre), he either refuses to acknowledge such flies in his
> > ointment or ludicrously attempts to fit the square pegs of 'factual
> > reality' into the round (w)hole of his faith/belief system, which
> > comprises the totality of his comprehension and understanding. In
> > other words, the precise behavior that you exhibit towards Hermit's
> > unansweable and crushing objections to your beloved memeset.
> > You are both slouching towards a bethlehem grail which neither of
> > you shall never reach, for in each case it is a mirage of your
> > zobically memebotic minds. However, in either case, you are both
> > shining, sterling examples of the virulent, rather than symbiont,
> > side of what both lists study. We are already vaccinated against
> > you and your ilk; perhaps one day we shall be able to offer you
> > cures for your respective infections that you would accept - you
> > each steadfastly refuse the elixirs of logic, reason and rationality,
> > and the bread of presented evidence.
> > >
> > > Everett
> > >
> > > Humanity's Ultimate Challenge
> > > http://www.specieup.com (soon to be 'specieup.org' )
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "Brian Brotarlo" <brofont@iloilo.net>
> > > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > > > Subject: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> > > > Date sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:38:32 +0800
> > > > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> > > >
> > > > > I think it's time to look at the man behind Analytical
> > Metaphysics. We've
> > > > > given enough crap about the pseudo-science. Time to put the
> > pigeon in its
> > > > > hole.
> > > > >
> > > > > For Starters:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hall is:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Loner (image of mad doctor in his mad laboratory)
> > > > > 2. A Little Paranoid (won't publish because he thinks he
> > won't get a fair
> > > > > reading)
> > > > > 3. Desperate (Everette being his disciple)
> > > > > 4. Prone to Hallucinations (Analytical Metaphysics, e.g.
> > fundamental
> > > > > existence or whatever.)
> > > > >
> > > > You forgot Megalomania, complete with delusions of
> > omniscience.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all so far... anybody wants to add more? I'm kindof
> > leaning to
> > > > > Para-Schizo, but isn't it too cliche already. Maybe somebody
> > can be more
> > > > > creative.
> > > > >
> > > > > But not to be too mean, just wants the rat out of his hole.
> > You understand
> > > > > the frustration, of course. Believe me, I can't wait till this
> hits
> > > > > Newsweek. Or when I die, and Fundamental Existence will
> > hold my hand, I'll
> > > > > be in tears. He says, "Welcome home, former unbeliever.
> > For you were part of
> > > > > mainstream society and now you have come back."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 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 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 16:35:09 GMT