Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA19948 (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 16:14:04 GMT Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:06:11 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase Message-ID: <20010315160611.B632@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CD7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CD7@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:24:02PM -0000 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 12:24:02PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >> 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?
Here's where Wade and I might diverge (but very possibly not). My ideal
state is not one in which my brain contains no encoded memes. It is one
in which I cling to and/or identify with none of the memes in my mind.
In other words, I don't "believe in" anything whatsoever. There are
only working hypotheses. This brain is still full of memes, but none of
them are particularly mine, and all have to prove their worth in purely
practical terms. (I don't claim to have reached that exalted state yet,
but I think I'm getting there, if slowly.)
> 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?
I'm not sure Blackmore and I share a buddhism+memetics position that
goes much deeper than the headline statements in my previous message.
But Buddhists commonly realise the contradiction in saying one should not
cling to anything, then clinging to Buddhism. The remedy is that one
should be willing to let Buddhism go, ie hold it merely as a working
hypothesis, as long as it works. This is not a "faith" as that's
commonly conceived. Quite the reverse, in fact.
> 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 aim to be free of memes in the sense that they have no undue power
over me, not in the sense that there are none in my mind. In fact, I
almost concur with Dennett when he suggests that my mind is a memetic
virtual machine (software) supported by genetically designed wetware.
Which implies that without memes, there is no mind.
> 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.
Rationality is great as far as it goes, but don't forget the value
of the emotions and spontaneity. My form of meme-freedom, unlike
your's, is positively beneficial in emotional/psychological terms.
(Much psychological "baggage" is in the form of beliefs, for instance
that I'm not worth much, or that I've been unjustly treated, etc, etc)
To test everything using the intellect is just not possible, but to
become aware of and then let go of all kinds of beliefs is highly
doable, though it takes time.
> 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.
I'm sure you're a highly sociable person, Vincent, but as I hope
I've explained, there's no contradiction whatsoever between that and
meme-freedom.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 - 16:16:27 GMT