Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA01513 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 17 Feb 2002 23:05:55 GMT Message-ID: <007b01c1b7fe$bedb3de0$9086b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <003701c1b2b0$fa01e160$8086b2d1@teddace> <006001c1b445$33346760$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> <email@example.com> <003e01c1b64f$1c25de80$1986b2d1@teddace> <003601c1b71c$c9f79da0$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: Words and Memes Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:02:06 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
From: Philip Jonkers
> > And what would you be like without you? There's got to be a subject of
> > awareness that perceives these varying degrees of reality and illusion.
> > Otherwise our thoughts and memes couldn't exist.
> Strip away the memes consituting our being (i.e. self-plex, ego)
> and all that remains is a human that survives on instinctual drives.
The set of self-images at the core of our minds cannot constitute our being,
since someone has to imagine the self-plex. There's no image without an
imaginer. As we know from studies of feral children, it's only in the act
of this imagining that the human self comes into being.
> > The conflict arises because, inevitably, some of our memified notions
> > be pathological. Ideas can't distinguish between right and wrong. Any
> > idea, no matter how ridiculous, can become self-replicating. Though
> > powerful, "L. Ron is God" doesn't contribute to the good of the social
> > It's a freelance meme, much like a carcinogenic cell. When an
> > social body begins to form around a carcinogenic meme, the result is
> > not culture.
> You have a point here, but two things. Isn't the phenomenon of the cult
> of culture. I'm aware of the superfluidity and redundancy of cults, but I
> consider it a subset of culture. The distinction between cult and culture
> is not of a seperable kind but rather of embedding kind (cult in culture).
> If you consider memes to be cultural elements that involve only
> replication, how would you explain the spreading of cult-memes? Cult-
> preaching (spreading the `cult-gospel') seems very intentional to me;
> Jehova's witnesses knocking on doors know very well what and why they are
> doing. If not, they wouldn't be able to get near their objective of
> Their intentional basis is pathological of course.
What begins as intention ossifies into habit. If it's interpersonal, it's
memetic. If it's pathological, it's cult. As Lawrence says, a Venn diagram
would be helpful here.
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 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 00:36:24 GMT