Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA22927 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:19:57 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:22:43 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <3ABB4013.26009.5A8920@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010323112448.B1120@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3ABA448D.5357.193296E@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:29:33PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 23 Mar 2001, at 11:24, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:29:33PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 22 Mar 2001, at 18:42, Scott Chase wrote: > > > >Where does
> delusion stop and the self begin...? > > > > > It's the illusory
> "self" which happens to be deluded. An illusion > > succumbs to
> delusion. Perhaps someone could craft a poem out of that. > > > how
> can something that is not real succumb to anything, much > less the
> delusion that it is real? Answer: it can't.
>
> It's obviously contradictory to say that an illusory thing can be
> deluded. But perhaps reality is little more complicated: if the self
> was sometimes real, and sometimes unreal, depending on the context and
> therefore the exact meaning of the word, then I believe all these
> contradictions could be resolved.
>
It would remove the contradiction if people would stop making the
implicit assumption that existence is irrevocably tied to thinghood.
That the self is No-Thing does not mean that it is nothing, nor does
it mean that the self is any thing in particular. Selves exist; they
are just not fixed, static things, like rocks and chairs. The self is
real, but not ossified; it is dynamic, ever-changing, ever-self-
changing, and will not be pinned down and completely defined,
because while it exists, it is always incomplete, and always
moving in the direction of its own completion which comes with
death, whether it is ready or not - that is when it's existence
becomes essence, and can be ascribed thinghood, or a complete
history ("Essence is what has been" - Hegel). Existentialism had
it right; we are what we are not and we are not what we are; our
lives are not only lived within the present moment, but behind it (in
memory) and ahead of it (in anticipation). We are ALL Billy
Pilgrims, and the Tralfamadoreans are a caricature of us and of
him; a Vonnegutian point that few reading SLAUGHTERHOUSE
FIVE grokked in its fulness. We are all individuals, and it is this
particularity and uniqueness that we share. This reminds me of the
Monty Python skit where a man is speaking to a crowd, and says,
"Now, we're all unique individuals here..." and a fellow pipes up
from the back with "I'M not!" Those guys could be sharp on
occasion, and sometimes had their own western slapstick version
of zen koan humor going on.
> --
> 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 23 2001 - 18:22:30 GMT