Re: question about memes

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 21:15:50 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "RE: question about memes"

    Received: by id VAA18666 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:23:57 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3
    Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:15:50 +0000
    Subject: Re: question about memes
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2002 21:17:56.0297 (UTC) FILETIME=[35022B90:01C1CDF9]
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Kenneth

    > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:44:06 +0100
    > From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    > Subject: Re: question about memes
    > - ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Philip Jonkers <>
    >> Thanks for your explanations Kenneth. I recognize that Yates' actions were
    >> understandable
    >> 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
    >> synonymous
    >> 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.

    > Philip,
    > I think taking the Nazis is a bad example.
    > In Germany of the early '30 and early ' 40 the majority owned the rational
    > mindset but did choose for Hitler !
    > In their way_ war was the only option left open_ of course, the choise
    > was largely induced by the Nazi- propaganda machine, but nevertheless !

    IIRC, Hitler did not get an outright majority, but was the largest minority
    and brow beat Hindenberg into giving him the Chancellery, followed by
    outlawing any party that would not tacitly support him, with Hindeburg
    rubber stamping the decision.
    > And to pre- suppose that the rivaling groups ( Europe) was ' rational' in
    > the ' 40, I doubt that ! Seen now of course.
    > Germany had lost for a great deal its social and cultural capital and was
    > in more sense than others an outcast due to what happened 20 years
    > earlier.

    In some respects yes, though this was due to the need to pay reparation that
    France insisted upon and that the UK and USA were not keen upon. The
    reparations and the Depression broke the German economy causing resentment
    and poverty. Hitler actually thought the UK could become allied to his
    course against the Soviets.

    > OTOH, Europe was in complete turmoil, the ways by which German
    > politicians were thinking was greatly influenced by guys like Heidegger,
    > Nietzsche, Smitt, Jaspers. The Weimar- politics were not forgotten !
    > To survive, the German people choose the best, possible option to them.

    They did indeed, though with 20/20 hindsight there choice was flawed.
    Something similar can be seen in Zimbabwe, for example. Not wishing to delve
    too deeply in to the history, Mugabe used the land issue and colonialism to
    get behind him a hardcore of supporters in the same way Hitler used the
    Versailles treaty.
    > 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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 21:45:53 GMT