Fw: state of memes

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2001 - 16:32:38 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Fw: state of memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA23627 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:44:30 +0100
    Message-ID: <002301c148fc$0dabb5c0$77a0bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Fw: state of memes
    Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:32:38 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Kenneth Van Oost <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:05 PM
    Subject: Re: state of memes

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    > > I've no major qualms about an elaborate missile defense network. I'm
    > > quite concerned about China and about states such as North Korea which
    > could
    > > eventually launch an attack as far away as the Pacific seaboard of the
    > U.S.
    > > The technological spin-offs (serendipity?) of such an undertaking could
    > > carry over into non-military realms. My major problem is with the price
    > tag.
    > > I've also got issues with irresponsible tax cuts being enacted during
    > > same period of time there's an expensive military build-up. A missile
    > > defense network won't prevent domestic terrorism but it could curtail
    > > range engagements.
    > Hi Scott,
    > I don 't know but from my POV you are missing an important part of the
    > equation here !
    > I understand your concerns about what Bush is planning to secure the
    > US, but don 't you think that beneath the reason of security there are
    > lying others, more important ones !? The ones that now pop up in every
    > American his/ her mind !? That in a way, you already answered the WHY
    > question, in your mind !?
    > Why would you be afraid of China and of North- Korea if not you
    > have reasons to believe you do !? You think that the American culture
    > is thé culture and you enforced this view upon others. But like Islam
    > your proud turned into arrogance. It goes wrong when you connect
    > a beliefsystem onto politics. The US beliefs strongly in democracy,
    > freedom, humanrights, equality, etc ... but not all do the same.
    > They do, but not the American- style.
    > Values of freedom and equality are rightly fundamental basisblocks
    > of our society, but concepts like zero- tolerance undermine the thought
    > of freedom itself. Don 't forget, the US is built upon slavery, those
    > thoughts and what kind of behaviorcharacteristics did lead from there
    > are still in place.
    > Like I did mention earlier on this list, the US, Islam, Europe and all
    > others are fixed in the way they all think_ memetic determinism
    > is according to the views of Huntington a direct result of our various
    > ethocentric civilizations. Each block, West, Islam,...has it very own
    > cultural habits to perform. We, the West with our technological
    > development goes mush faster than the rest, but we have to act so
    > that we " protect " the others.
    > That is something we cannot do, our memetic determinism implies
    > a necessity to " destroy " others, to " steal " from them, to enforce
    > our views upon them so that we can go on.
    > The solution would be of course, that we take the others into our
    > account and help them to develop further. But, again, memetical
    > we are blocked to do that. Such ideas are ' Green ' ones, are anti-
    > globalist- ones and those will not do.
    > In a way, giving in on the anti- globalist movement would be taking
    > one step back and we wan' t above all to go one step beyond the
    > limits we all know now. The results are quite explosive, literally.
    > From our point of view, bringing for example black Africa upon
    > the rate of development as we know it, would be catastrofical
    > for the worlds environment. That is what we think !
    > But does it !? Yes, if we take our numbers into account, but do have
    > impartial numbers to back up another view !? No !!
    > That is what I mean. We need not to change the world, not the exterior
    > factors but we need to change the interior.
    > Again, that is a " Green "-peace- view, not an one I very like, but
    > we have to make another step for a higher development. Now we are
    > stuck on our well known certain level, we need to go beyond that.
    > Regards,
    > Kenneth
    > ( I am, because we are) the way we think

    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 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 19:55:14 BST