RE: democratic communication

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 14:29:10 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Mini case study of memetic mutation"

    On 11/07/02 09:56, Vincent Campbell said this-

    > Well, self-interest definitely follows, but it might be overt and
    >"honest" rather than propaganda (like your own acknowledgement of pursuing a
    >particular approach to see what happens when a view is stuck to for a while,
    >to see how well it stands up to scrutiny, and not because you necessarily
    >believe in it to that extent). But yes, largely propaganda is what occurs
    >in what passes for democratic society.

    I like to think that science is about as close as we can get to that platonic democratic whole, that information and conjecture can be shared and openly discussed, and where secrecy is not only forbidden, but a cause of ostracization. Science is not a secret society, or a proprietary corporation, or a coven of illuminati, but an open community of seekers. A democracy of knowledge.

    If it's for sale, it's not science. If it's a secret, it's not science. If it can only be revealed after a price is paid, it's not science. It's some bureaucratic system, the institution of which many of us face from day to day, in all spheres.

    >the refeudalisation of the public sphere

    Sounds like a highly political perspective, but, that's okay.

    - Wade

    =============================================================== 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 07 Nov 2002 - 14:34:25 GMT