Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA19411 (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 13:02:38 GMT Subject: RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:58:59 -0500 x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010315125858.AAA423@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.34]> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Vincent Campbell -
>do people really mean they want to be meme-free, or only
>free of those memes they don't like?
Point on....
>If being
>part of a social system means being subject to memes then I'd rather have
>that.
Well, of course it does, and of course you, and we, must have it, all of
it, at all times. Ideal states are just that, unrealizable.
I would argue that Breton says something real here- "(Surrealism)
declares that it is able, by its own means, to uproot thought from an
increasingly cruel state of thralldom, to steer it back onto the path of
total comprehension, return it to its original purity."
It is this purity of interaction with nature that I seek.
But meme reduction, while seemingly a good thing- how is it possible?
And this is where I turn to the rational and the skeptical, and to
Occam's razor, because, like you say "memes are [not] universally
malevolent", but, science doesn't have any.
- Wade
===============================================================
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 - 13:04:57 GMT