Re: question about memes

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 23:52:41 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Cultural traits and vulnerability to memes"

    Received: by id XAA13402 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:02:38 GMT
    Message-ID: <001101c1cc7c$82dcbd40$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer>
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    To: <>
    References: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FBBB@fillan><000d01c1cb75$6d277880$e6a6eb3e@default> <001d01c1cb86$43cc4040$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> <000701c1cc5a$6e9891a0$41abeb3e@default>
    Subject: Re: question about memes
    Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:52:41 -0900
    Organization: Prodigy Internet
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
    X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
    Precedence: bulk

    Thanks for your explanations Kenneth. I recognize that Yates' actions were
    in her own eyes. But I don't think one can call them rational unless you are
    willing to
    accept a more subjective definition of the word. To me the being rational is
    to a natural or logical code of conduct with a minimum use of extrasensory
    assumptions or
    basis. Ideally rather than usually perhaps, the rational mindset is owned by
    the majority
    of a population.If not, the population is likely to ultimately perish or
    suffer as their ill-founded
    actions are not compatible with nature or (rivaling) groups which do happen
    to be rational.
    Take the nazis as an example.

    Killing off children in times of personal crisis is generally not accepted
    and clashes
    with common sense and more over with any modern ethical standards maintained
    by civilised societies.
    In other words, killing ones children is not conformal to the generally
    accepted standard
    of family conduct. In even other words, it is not rational.

    Once again, I am grateful for your elaboration on the subject and can
    Yates' actions better but to call it rational seems a little over the top
    for me.

    Best regards,


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:47 AM
    Subject: Re: question about memes

    > ----- 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
    > !
    > 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
    > satisfaction,
    > 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
    > 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,
    > 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:

    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 - 23:13:09 GMT