Re: The Demise of a Meme

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 02:08:03 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: [Fwd: Religion is the opiate of masses. Just say "no" to drugs]"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA04589 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:05:49 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:08:03 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme
    Message-ID: <3AC38813.19354.435467@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.20010329123619.0083d200@mailhost.rongenet.sk.ca>
    References: <c9.e753c47.27f4574d@aol.com>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 29 Mar 2001, at 12:36, Lloyd Robertson wrote:

    > At 04:15 AM 29/03/01 EST, LJayson@aol.com wrote:
    > >At 06:13 PM 28/03/01 EST, LJayson@aol.com wrote:
    > >>
    > >>robin@reborntechnology.co.uk writes:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>By my understanding and experience, enlightenment can be achieved
    > >>while under the influence of psych*a*delics, but the state wears
    > >>off pretty quickly, like the drug, whereas if attained by the more
    > >>traditional, long-term means, it's more likely to stay.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>In this context, what is meant by enlightenement?
    > >>
    > >>Len Jayson
    > >
    > >>Lloyd Robertson wrote:
    > >>Whatever Buddhists like Watts and Faichney mean by it. To the rest
    > >>its just koan.
    > >
    > >
    > >Could we therefore say that one man's enlightenment is another man's
    > >endarkenment?
    >
    > I agree with Len's statement but would broaden it. Each memeplex has
    > it's own term for "endarkment". For Christianity it is sin. For
    > Buddhists it is delusion.
    >
    Buddhists also consider "endarkment" to be ignorance, which I
    guess can lead one to uncritically accept delusion. This definition
    does, however play into the religious propagation and support
    meme that, while not exclusive to Buddhism, is definitely shared
    by it; this meme states that if you do not agree, it simply means
    that you don't understand, and the only way to understand is to
    accept, i.e. agree. The unaccepting or unagreeing position must
    therefore be very delusional to provoke such enlightened sages to
    detest it, and these self-styled sages must be very enlightened to
    so detest the positions which reject or disagree with their own. Of
    course this is a circular, and therefore invalid, argument, but it is
    meant to appeal to the emotions, not convince the intellect. It has
    the same structure as the fundamentalist meme that certain
    preachers must be very righteous men to be so offended by evil,
    and whatever offends them must be evil in order to thus offend such
    righteous people as preachers. Thus by denouncing something,
    they at the same time illegitimately label what they denounce as
    evil and themselves as righteous. This moebius line is used
    extensively by christian fundamentalist antiabortionists and
    homophobes.
    >
    > Each memeplex defines its endarkment term in
    > a way that essentially means: not accepting the faith. This means
    > revising definitions to fit dogma. Thus "enlightment" to a Buddhist
    > means something different from what the term meant during Europe's
    > "Age of Enlightenment". "Delusion" to a Buddhist means something
    > different from what it means in mainstream psychology.
    >
    > I am not sure how your term, "endarkment", might apply to
    > non-religious memeplexi. I suppose, at a personal level, it might have
    > to to do with anything that creates cognitive dissonance in the self.
    > At the level of science it might have something to do with not knowing
    > or deliberately non knowing. Feminist researchers in my country, for
    > example, exposed male domestic violence while witholding those results
    > of their research that showed that women, in domestic situations, were
    > just as violent as the men studied. Possibly this was seen as
    > "enlightened" in feminist circles but in scientific circles it would
    > be seen as unethical.
    >
    > I apologize for rambling. Interesting question.
    >
    > Lloyd
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 30 2001 - 02:08:38 BST