Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA23706 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:50 GMT Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:29:31 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase Message-ID: <20010316102931.A1029@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20010316014312.AAA29103@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.44]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010316014312.AAA29103@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.44]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 08:43:12PM -0500 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 08:43:12PM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Scott Chase -
>
> >How could you have a life without memes if the meme of "memelessness" is
> >propogated?
>
> Of course, it is not right to speak of the meme of memelessness, any more
> than it is right to speak of the white of whitelessness, or the 'x' of
> any 'x'-lessness.
That's not quite right, Wade. The concept of memelessness is most
certainly a meme. And to answer Scott's point, the value of that
concept is where it contributes to a diminution, however slight, of
memetic domination of any mind. This is about degrees, not absolutes.
> Are there memes at work when you lurch back from a hot stove?
>
> This innate reaction/reflex is not memetic. (I think we can soundly
> concur, here, on that point....) Now, what if the entire reaction we
> could have to any input were on that same innate/reflex level, but,
> somehow, shifted from unconscious, to conscious areas of thought?
>
> In order to do that, all memetic processes, those filters of perceptions
> that experience and the living of life (that which interrupts us when
> we're planning something) dress us up with and that we clothe ourselves
> in willingly, would have to be discarded - at least for the direct moment
> of the perception - and thus, a _new_ perception will be gathered.
>
> This, to me, has always been the artistic experience, has always been the
> core of the creative experience, and has always been the method (if you
> will), of the hero.
And that's what meditation is best at: diminishing the power of memes
over our perceptions, letting us approach closer and closer to the
ideal of "raw feels". You obviously value the latter, but you denigrate
meditation -- you're missing out, big time, Wade!
(And eurekas are not artificially induced by meditation, but simply what
happens when unconscious mental processing is given the space to come
to the surface, due to the diminution of conscious mental activity.)
> Joe's reminder to us that the Noble Savage lurks in the wings as a
> mainstream spin-doctored romantic and lace-collared version of this raw
> animal is important. Most 'counter-cultures' are faddish remnants of this
> as well.
>
> The artist remains, to me, at the head of this group. Buddha and Jesus
> and Mohammed and the Great Zarquon come up somewhere near the end of the
> line, rememberers of the tune, not players of the music.
Buddha left a method for getting ever closer to the experience/reality
interface. I've been looking for 30 or so years and have yet to find
a more effective antimemetic.
I'll grant you artists are probably generally best at doing it, but SOME
religions/philosophies are better at communicating how to do it.
(And communicating how to is, of course, memetic, thus the paradox.
But it's not a problem.)
-- 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 : Fri Mar 16 2001 - 10:39:17 GMT