RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 16 2001 - 10:52:12 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Eureka and story theory"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA23767 (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 10:59:15 GMT
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CE0@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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:52:12 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Thanks for your response Robin.

    I see whay you're saying, and whilst I wouldn't necessarily agree, I think
    you may a cogent and reasonable argument here.

    I won't say more in this post, as I see a sudden flurry of posts, so I'll
    read those first, so's not to repeat other's comments.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Robin Faichney
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:06 pm
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase
    >
    > 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 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 - 11:01:39 GMT