Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 20:06:10 +0100
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ontology and selfish gammar illusions
In-Reply-To: <aa78f510.247af204@aol.com>
In message <aa78f510.247af204@aol.com>, JakeSapien@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 5/21/99 2:54:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
>robin@faichney.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>>>>Is it the "having a self" that is a highly successful memeplex, or are
>there
> >various "brands" of "selfishness" that are highly successful memeplexes
> >related to having a self? I could see the latter, but not the former.
>
> I go along with Blackmore in viewing the self, itself, as a memeplex.
> There are obviously many other memes and memeplexes more-or-less closely
> associated with that one. However, for me memetics is not absolute
> truth, but just a very, though not universally, useful conceptual
> framework. Like physics and Buddhism, for instance. The belief in an
> absolute truth tends to go when you graduate from naive realism. (Hope
> you like my new metaphor!)
> --
> Robin Faichney<<
>
>Yes I like the new metaphor even as I laugh at it! :-) No I certainly
>haven't graduated, if it would mean that I would necessarily conclude that
>*having a self* itself was nothing more than a meme-illusion. I remain
>"naive" on that point.
Naive realism about the self might usefully be distinguished from naive
realism in general -- or on the other hand, perhaps not.
-- Robin Faichney=============================================================== 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