Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 17:12:56 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA29780 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:39:09 GMT
    Message-ID: <000901c0afce$c91fc480$9209bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745CD7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <20010315160611.B632@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase
    Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:12:56 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:06 PM
    Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase

    Hi Robin,
    You wrote,
    > 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.)

    << In a pure philosophical way you do still believe...you believe in " I
    don 't believe in anything whatsoever."
    But how will you prove that memes are worthly in practical terms !?
    How in other words, do you * select * to and for yourself the memes
    which are to be prooving worthly in practical term !?
    And if they were prooving themselves not so practical after all, how do
    you eliminate them out of your bodily and mindly system !?
    Or is simply * not believing them anymore * the solution !?

    You need " stronger memes " for that, and in IMO that is still * belie-
    ving * in something.
    Or is simply " letting them go " the solution !?
    Same argument here, how do you do that_ how do you " let memes go "
    and how will/ can/ may you be a social entity if you for example do not
    believe anymore (in) the memes which are encoded in behavior/ artifacts
    and patterns !?
    Or do you not believe anymore the ( certain) memes which are encoded!?
    And if you do...to how are you capable of seeing those things as they are !?
    Different from us !?
    An artifact of religion by which you don 't believe anymore certain encoded
    memes is not that IMO same artifact !
    It is an artifact stripped of its meaning, stripped of its practical term.

    > 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.

    << Are you saying you are/ were or become indifferent to them !?
    In a way you narrow your mind upon certain interest points as being
    practical/ beneficial and psychological and emotionally worthly !?
    Is it that what you mean !?
    In fact, you may say you * react * upon psychological, emotional and
    in some practical way to certain points of cultural and social behavior and/
    or intercourse, and you do not ¨* react * upon certain others or do not
    * react * with the same psychological/ emotinal degree as to the ones as
    noted before !?

    If that is the case_ you * react * or not upon certain points in/ out your
    environment, than we can say, you ( or your mind, memes or whatsoever)
    * selects * and therefor in a way " they " change you in a clear and
    distinc-
    tive direction.
    And therefor ( and this is just a personal ascertainty) I think you ride in
    the
    Lamarckian mode on this, not into the Darwinian one. And that is a point I
    'm willing to take....

    > 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.

    << Here I see your point more clearly and must agree!!
    And in fact I must readjust my comments made in this post, but I stick to my
    point of view, as far IMO, " believing " is a bad choise to express your
    overall
    line of thought.
    It would may be better to say, ' to be rational skeptical ' or to be
    'skeptical
    logical ' or to engage into what I should call * conflict *.
    Believing is setting up uniformity. Uniformity reduces quality.
    If trying to restore * differentiality * and therefor quality means to
    reduce
    memes, and in doing so, one becomes ( of some) meme(s) free, well I
    agree.
    That is the way to do it, but Robin, IMO, the current ways of social inter-
    course and the common believe in democracy, tolerance and solidarity
    does still due power over you.
    In fact, what you are trying to be, is what I feel I am since a long time
    and
    that is ( to be) an * individualist *, a pure * individual *.
    Go on, it is a true aim !!

    PS, your overall idea can be applied in many ways and in fact reduce
    psychological illness as well as reduces psychological and emotional
    stresses.
    Example, when a kid dies in a carcrash, at least some examples are
    shown here in Belgium, the whole school gets psychological help. IMO,
    a clear case that does not prevent an event like this from clogging the
    long term memory, but just the opposite...and that is no good thing....

    Hopes this helps and hope this makes sense....
    Answers to your questions have to wait untill later.
    Very busy at the moment, only free in the weekends.
    Thanks for the understanding.

    Best regards,

    Kenneth

    ( I am, because we are)

    ===============================================================
    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 : Sun Mar 18 2001 - 16:41:33 GMT