Re: Genetic transmission of phallic attraction?!? [was Re: memes and sexuality]

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sat Apr 21 2001 - 16:32:43 BST

  • Next message: J. R. Molloy: "Re: The Status of Memetics as a Science"

    Received: by id QAA20148 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:46:14 +0100
    Message-ID: <00ce01c0ca79$813101a0$e65c2a42@jrmolloy>
    From: "J. R. Molloy" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Genetic transmission of phallic attraction?!?  [was Re: memes and sexuality]
    Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:32:43 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    From: "TJ Olney" <>
    > Two things to clear up here, 1) the difference between predisposition and
    > determinancy. And 2) These two things are of different logical types and
    > must be treated at the appropriate logical level.

    That is an important distinction, and helps to explain how predisposition can
    become determinacy via cultural feedback and evironmental reinforcement. In
    this way, memetics may amplify and augment genetics (though sometimes they
    conflict for ideological reasons).

    > If genetic selection favors males who gravitate toward powerful tools that
    > can be wielded as weapons, then genetics are determining a predisposition.
    > If that set of genes are raised in a memepool with access to and beliefs
    > about using such weapons, then we have Robin's situation.

    I know what you mean, but I can't help myself... The situation of Robin
    wielding powerful tools as weapons makes me re-think what I wrote to him. τΏτ

    > There is no biological reductionism. I recommend Lynch's treatment of this
    > difference in regard to homosexuality in Thought Contagion.

    Thanks for the reference.
    Lynch comments at:
    Online chapter at:

    > A further muddling occurs in Robin's statement when he asserts the
    > interpretation of a gun as a "phallic power symbol." To the extent that it
    > is such a thing, that is memetic. The physical power embodied in it as an
    > explosive killing device is something quite different.

    Indeed, this example (gun as phallic symbol) could serve as a way of defining
    Thank you for that.

    --J. R.

    Useless hypotheses:
     consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
    analog computing, cultural relativism

         Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
         but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
         (Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)

    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 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 16:49:34 BST