Fw: Why memeoids?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 - 19:34:51 GMT

  • Next message: Francesca S. Alcorn: "Re: Selfish meme?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA00978 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:52:23 GMT
    Message-ID: <001b01c1b7ea$42aabac0$12afeb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <kennethvanoost@myrealbox.com>
    Subject: Fw: Why memeoids?
    Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:34:51 +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: Ronan Dodds <ronan_meme@lycos.com>
    > Just to get back onto memetics, a theme I've been developing recently is
    > private property defends itself and extends its influence. Certain ideas
    > (or memes) reinforce property rights, while private property (wealth)
    > determines to a large extent which memes people are exposed to. I'd be
    > interested in any comments on this idea (this is putting it very simply,
    > i may start another thread on this idea, although I think Marx got there
    > first).
    > Hi Ronan,
    > Sorry for the delay,
    > I will answer with examples,
    > Recently I heard a story ( US?) of a man being found NOT guilty of killing
    > his neighbour, who in the first place complained about he dog of
    > The neighbour went over the fence in order to inforce the status of the
    > gument and was shot dead. The judge ruled that the man could protect his
    > property. ( That would be the former in your request).
    > Keeping that in mind, a judge in Belgium found the government equal
    > guilty of killing a young girl being run over by a truck, because of the
    > lack
    > of the legislation concerning the use of the ' dead- corner - mirror '.
    > ( That is a mirror that diminshes the corner wherein the driver can 't see
    > what is just aside of his truck)
    > The judge ruled that we the people must be protected from the incompe-
    > tence of the authorities. ( That would be the latter)
    > But it is my point of view that, once again, the discussion goes along the
    > same line of thought like it always has been, individual against
    > collectiviness.
    > Moreover, such arguments has to be seen as part of the recognition- status
    > of the individual ( as in the former) or as in a collective goal ( the
    > latter).
    > Habermas writes, " The individualition of people, even as corporate
    > is only due to the socialisation. This demands a correct theory of rights,
    > whereby a politic of recognition, which does protects the integrity of the
    > individual, is essential. Such a theory must also protect the contexts
    > where-
    > in the individual lives his life. "
    > Between the identity of the individual and the collective identities
    > gender, nationality, ...) lies an obvious connection: - our individual
    > identity
    > has two major dimenses.
    > The individual identity has also a collective one, the point of
    > of our collective identity and our individual one which does not exists
    > out of the same elements as the former.
    > The individual identity exists out of things which are socially/ ethical
    > very
    > important but which are not part of the collective identities.
    > What means, that I being white, male, hetero ( which are important to me)
    > would have ( in a sense) problems being recognised as such ( as in rights)
    > living in a lesbian, black matriachalic society.
    > Such a difference is mostly made upon social arguments, namely how far
    > the respect for the others their autonomy resticts our ethical sense.
    > That is, in the end, the cultural environment fights for its survival,
    > politics
    > is what you should can call the protector, if discriminating white, male,
    > hetero human beings is the way to do it, we will.
    > ( And as in the examples I gave, the protection/ survival of the cultural
    > environment is in both cases obvious.)
    > And to get back to memes, we got it into our power to make our children
    > in such a way that the survival of our culture is garanteed.
    > There is, according to A. Appiah, no such thing like an individual core
    > waiting to burst open. And in a sense, we could say that the ignorance
    > of our children is just another way by which memes propagate_ we fill
    > them up with our beliefs, traits and habits. In the otther way round we
    > even wouldn 't have evolution.....
    > Hope this helps,
    > Cheers,
    > 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 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 22:13:08 GMT