Re: playing at suicide

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 18:30:09 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: CRASH CONTAGION" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA00783 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:28:42 GMT
Message-ID: <002601c197a9$6fd3c020$c8a4bed4@default>
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
References: <LAW2-F107WWhbBu40lB00018264@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: playing at suicide
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:30:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Grant Callaghan <grantc4@hotmail.com>
    I feel sorry for the
    > children who followed their instincts to their deaths, but I don't really
    > see any deep psychological underpinning for it. To me it looks a lot like
    > what happens when a child dashes in front of a car or falls into a
    swimming
    > pool and drowns -- an unfortunate accident. We can't child-proof the
    world
    > to avoid them.

    Hi Grant,

    I feel sorry too ! My understanding of the facts are quite the same except
    for not seeing any deep psychological underpinning for it.
    I stand convinced of the fact that in many cultures children were not to be
    harmed, more for moral and ethical reasons than for the being of the kid
    itself. In a sense we, the eldery/ the parents always discharge children
    from
    any responsibility. We are trying to make the world child- proof in a very
    extreme way...
    It is my view that ( Lamarckian) memetic inheritance, that is, inheritance
    of thoughts, insights, opinions,... are part of the puzzle !
    It all boils down to the point that the concept of natural selection is just
    another favorable mutation in extremis chosen by a particular memetic
    mindset.

    Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the view that even certain or par-
    ticular behavioral traits of which we think they are promoted by natural
    selection are in fact already ' chosen mutations '. Investigators would see
    those as outcomes of a Darwinian natural selection process where in fact
    a Lamarckian one holds the key.
    It is my suggestion that memecomplexes/ brainstructures may have
    mechanisms fo choosing which memes suits best.

    Thanks for the link,

    Regards,

    Kenneth

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 18:35:10 GMT