Fw: Menomics (7)

From: Van oost Kenneth (kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Mon 23 Dec 2002 - 17:46:34 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Fw: Menomics (8 and end)"

      We might even think to force them to deploy themselves in the only place
      they belong in_ in the individual. If we soon don 't see that the upon us forced
      collectiviness forbids access to what we really are, it will devour us.
      You can 't imagine it, because your brain haven 't thought about this, more-
      over_ it has been filled with old, bored deadly chatter, that crushes every
      attempt of individualism to burst out.
      Nonetheless, there is no doubt that future memes are already doing what
      they're supposed to do and leave undubitable marks, but less bearable
      would be the fact that some were to be entangled in some relationships
      where they could do nothing.
      It should be obvious, that we need to push those along a bit.

      No matter what, its with this observation we come to the core of Menomics.
      We will find that constant changes bring with a number of unavoidable side-
      effects, those not only make it extremely difficult for us to control or even to
      predict further development, but that further more these are already effec-
      ting the ( opportunities for) change itself.
      The knowledge we have now is indeed nothing more but some present
      reliable set of data. With that we judge what we see, it is there only meant
      to be understood and to be recognized as something good or to be consi-
      derated as some form of improvement. The idea that upon this, selective
      pressures are at work is not exaggerated but what is remarkable is the
      fact that we can draw this to its ultimate consequences.
      The angle from which Menomics forces us to consider possible outcomes
      determines its character.

      The more Menomics will progress in its search for possible needed
      ( affects on and opportunities for those are due in the future) the more its
      gains will stand out. To the point there is variation and selection, we can
      say that evolution will triumph. But that is an illusion.
      Evolution is a process of constantly changing advantages, but is also
      a question of modification. In a word, it is not that British scientists
      found a gene for crime that the development of drugs to fight and con-
      trol cirminal behavior will suffice.
      The more meaningful set is the one that tranfers its effects to the future.
      Whereas, we all would consider to support the conventional lines of
      thinking, such cases deserves quite different solutions.

      If indeed, symtomatically, such a thing as a gene for crime would
      exist it doesn't mean you are allowed to do nothing more than to
      describe drugs to contradict its effects. That is exactly what we do now !
      We must leave the path this thought has traced.

      We must basically, design ways of thinking which will be better
      suited to deal with such problems in the future. What will come
      are notions about social intercourse if indeed the acceptation of
      such a gene is/ can be predicted_ we can't and may not exclude
      youngsters if they were to be carrier of such a gene.
      The fact is, if we still will walk along the dominant path of our so
      called modern thinking we will tear ourselves socially and culturally
      down. Caught in some ethical middle there is no sense of what lies

    =============================================================== 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 23 Dec 2002 - 17:29:00 GMT