Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA21177 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:55:55 GMT Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:45:25 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Self-defense Message-ID: <20001212104525.A350@reborntechnology.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I find the possibility of a memetic analysis of the self quite
fascinating, but there's a problem.
Is there anyone here who can clearly distinguish between defending
the self and defending themselves? Who can argue for a more than
merely memetic self without taking the counter argument personally?
Who does not feel at all threatened by it, being motivated entirely by
a desire for truth? All those I've found willing to defend the self
make it very obvious, in their emotional tone, that they feel they're
defending themselves.
Or is that inevitable? Is the distinction I'm drawing here valid,
or is any defense of the self necessarily motivated by emotion?
Is the self an irreducibly emotional entity?
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 Dec 12 2000 - 10:57:20 GMT