Re: question about memes

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 19:47:53 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: question about memes"

    Received: by id TAA13134 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:45:52 GMT
    Message-ID: <000701c1cc5a$6e9891a0$41abeb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FBBB@fillan><000d01c1cb75$6d277880$e6a6eb3e@default> <001d01c1cb86$43cc4040$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    Subject: Re: question about memes
    Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:47:53 +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: Philip Jonkers <>
    > Beg pardon? Killing your 5 children is a rational option in a somewhat
    > difficult time is rational to you? Thank 'god' I'm not a daughter or son
    > of you. Excuse me but I'm beginning to have serious doubts about
    > your own faculty of reason now Kenneth. I can understand that during
    > times of extreme conditions like (mideval) famines or prospects of
    > certain mass-destruction and death, such as invasions and war,
    > you might save your children a lot of misery and suffering and
    > surrender them to an easy death. In other cases, it sounds like
    > insanity to the highest degree and everyone who thinks otherwise
    > should get his/hers head examined.

    << Believe me, Philip, these are the things I throw in the open, though !
    Anyhow, let me explain, I agree, it might seem extreme and I understand
    you surprise perfectly, but don 't misunderstand me, in the eyes of Yates
    killing her children is an/ the only option lef and a rational one...for her
    There is nothing wrong with such a kind of reasoning, though, conside-
    ring the fact that the act of killing the children gives a sense of
    not in the sense of having pleasure ( like by pedosexual murder), but in
    the sense of relief_ the children are save now, the children would not have
    to bear the buders/ hazzards of life,...etc.

    The same kind of reasoning you find in cases where one or both the
    parents kill their children and commit suicide, again_ to protect the
    children and nothing more, to protect the children from knowing that
    their parents killed themselves and left them behind.
    I have to admit, such a kind of thinking, and my own faculty of reaso-
    ning is quite alright ( I am not upset though) is maybe new to you,
    Philip, but not for me. I came across this a few years ago and since
    then I am convinced of its contents.

    Yates, IMO is not an impulsive character, but more the methodical
    type. She was not socially unadapted, but more someone who was
    quite adapted for the life she lead_ so it seemed anyway.
    But the methodical type does ( almost always) have serious problems,
    where the outside world knows nothing of. This type can prepare/ plan
    his/ he act years in advance, rolling the film before their own eyes, over
    and over again and finally, when the string snaps, she will kill !

    What is surprising though, is that Yates, being woman did kill her
    children and IIRC not tried to kill herself, but gently rang the police_
    like she was relieved of a great burder ( maybe revenge).
    In most cases I came across, only a handful were committed by the
    mother, and in those she killed her children and committed suicide,
    afterwards or together with them. Mos cases are done by the father,
    killing his family and committing suicide. Yates, is a somehow, but
    interesting case.

    What you comments about mideval are concerned, of such cases
    I know not enough about, vaguely it rings a bell ( Egypt ?), but I do
    not know any precedent in history.
    OTOH, I do not think that the reason for killing the children lies in
    the notion of sparing them misery_ IIRC again Egypt, during the
    great drought people killed their children to stay alive themselves.
    They ate their children to survive...and I suspect to rebuilt a family
    when the worse was over. A thought, Philip, people had in Holland
    a few years ago...!

    A few months ago there was a program running, Vincent !? can you
    help me out here, about the reason why some great civiliations dis-
    appeared from the face of the earth. Evidence was duck up that confirmed
    tthe theory that in the end, when the peoples were nearly driven to
    exinction; their children were he only supply of food left_ not a cheer-
    ful thought, but the hard facts. I have no problem with picturing what
    happened and what might have been there, think of me as you like,
    but again, by no means I am upset !

    The thing is, Philip, with all do respect, and I mean that, memes which
    spell out conformity towards how we must treat our children are
    blocking the other direction, that is the place where I stand. In and with
    the understanding and with the comprehension that anything is possible
    for any reason, you understand the people who are doing such things,
    better_, like I try to, if you go inside their head. This leads to some
    kind of empathy which I have as for the victims as for the ones who
    commit the deeds. OTOH, you need to keep a certain distance, between
    both culprit / victim and yourself. The by me, so called workable in-
    difference is something you need_ in order to keep the understanding
    and the comprehension going.

    Hope this helps to understand my point of view,

    Many regards,


    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 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 19:56:21 GMT