Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jan 14 2001 - 15:24:49 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA13910 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:29:58 GMT
    Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:24:49 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
    Message-ID: <20010114152449.A2152@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <20010112215738.A2288@reborntechnology.co.uk> <B68716E0.6906%bbenzon@mindspring.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
    In-Reply-To: <B68716E0.6906%bbenzon@mindspring.com>; from bbenzon@mindspring.com on Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:42:10AM -0500
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:42:10AM -0500, William Benzon wrote:
    > on 1/12/01 4:57 PM, Robin Faichney at robin@reborntechnology.co.uk wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:42:42AM -0500, William Benzon wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Their favorite stories seem to be about religion and cultures. And the
    > >> stories they tell indicate that they have a very shallow conception of human
    > >> nature and society. The orthodox memetic position is that the most
    > >> important thing about religion is that it is irrational. That's what they
    > >> want to explain. How do they explain it? By saying those pesky memes are
    > >> working juju on the minds of otherwise unsuspecting adults.
    > >>
    > >> That's a pathetic explanation. It tells me these people simply do not have
    > >> any deep conception of human nature. They aren't interested in explaining
    > >> human behavior. Rather, they want to explain it away by palming it off on
    > >> memes.
    > >
    > > I think you're absolutely right regarding that "explanation" of religion
    > > and the people who propound it. But I'd like to see you try to back up
    > > your claim that it's "the orthodox memetic position".
    >
    > Are you suggesting that Dawkins, Dennett, Lynch, & Blackmore have something
    > else to say on the matter?

    Given Blackmore's commitment to Buddhism, I think it safe to assume she
    does NOT belong in that camp. Of the others, Dawkins is the only one that
    I know does. But whatever, there is very little that can reasonably be
    considered "orthodox memetics" -- that, surely, is one of its weaknesses.
    I'd suggest that you succumb to the temptation to take the worst as
    typical due to your anti-memetic prejudice. This is an extremely
    successful meme, to be found just about anywhere there's any prejudice,
    whatsoever, even when it means imagining concensus where there's none.

    By the way, as far as I'm concerned, that memetic way of talking is
    just that: a way of talking. At this level, that of the specific
    meme, it has no significant explanatory power. Much better, most
    times, to use psychology, etc. So I'm on your side in this. But the
    fundamentals of memetics are useful at a higher level of abstraction.
    It provides a way of thinking in objective terms about recurring patterns
    of non-genetically-determined behaviour. As far as I'm aware, there is
    no alternative to it, in this. Though I'd be fascinated to learn of any.

    -- 
    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 : Sun Jan 14 2001 - 15:31:31 GMT