RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 15 2001 - 12:24:02 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA19287 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:27:12 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CD7@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase
    Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:24:02 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >> Wade T.Smith wrote:
    >> - to the point of which I have declared, manifesto-like, "To a
    life
    > >> without memes!" which, to me, is a utopian and ideal state...
    >
            <You might be surprised to learn that Sue Blackmore and I are in
    complete
    > agreement with you on that. Of course, we equate memelessness with
    > Enlightenment, which you probably don't. But then, what does that tell
    > us, other than that your concept of Enlightenment differs from ours?>
    >
    >
            Call me a memebot if you like, but I'm suspicious of this kind of
    view for a few reasons, which I'll pose as questions.

            First, is it really possible to be meme-free, and be a person
    capable of social interaction? In other words does not being free of memes
    does that not meme foregoing social interaction, which is inherently shaped
    by the culture in which one lives?

            Second, do people really mean they want to be meme-free, or only
    free of those memes they don't like? For example, Blackmore talks a lot
    about freeing oneself from memes whilst implicitly indicating her support
    for buhhdism memes. Isn't that actually contradictory?

            Third, the whole notion of freeing oneself from memes implies that
    memes are universally malevolent, that they do harm to people, but is this
    really the case? (I know this is a well worn area, but I think if people are
    stating the aim to be meme-free, they need to demonstrate this.)

            I think the only option is to critically examine everything we think
    we believe and know, and to do so continually, and to treat challenges to
    our beliefs and knowledge with due consideration. This does not mean that
    we won't be subject to memes, but some of them may have positive social and
    personal consequences. I don't see how anyone would actually benefit
    personally or socially from being completely meme-free.

            I suppose my arguments rest on the value of social interaction.
    It's quite clear that we are a social species, and isolationism of any kind
    would seem to me to deny an essential aspect of human existence. If being
    part of a social system means being subject to memes then I'd rather have
    that.

            Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 Mar 15 2001 - 12:29:33 GMT