Re: Why memeoids?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 - 10:15:41 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Memes Meta-Memes and Politics 3 of 3 (1988, updates 2002)"

    Received: by id VAA00993 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:52:29 GMT
    Message-ID: <001001c1b7a2$2d51b900$58aceb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Why memeoids?
    Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:15:41 +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
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Ronan Dodds <>
    Just to get back onto memetics, a theme I've been developing recently is how
    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, so
    i may start another thread on this idea, although I think Marx got there

    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 something.
    The neighbour went over the fence in order to inforce the status of the ar-
    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
    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
    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
    Habermas writes, " The individualition of people, even as corporate bodies,
    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
    in the individual lives his life. "

    Between the identity of the individual and the collective identities ( race,
    gender, nationality, ...) lies an obvious connection: - our individual
    has two major dimenses.
    The individual identity has also a collective one, the point of intersection
    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
    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,
    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,



    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 17 2002 - 23:14:28 GMT