Fw: playing at suicide

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 20:01:12 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Fw: CRASH CONTAGION"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA00931 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:59:40 GMT
    Message-ID: <000901c197b6$24c029e0$07a4bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: Fw: playing at suicide
    Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:01:12 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    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-majordomo@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: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:30 PM
    Subject: Re: playing at suicide

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Grant Callaghan <grantc4@hotmail.com>
    > I feel sorry for the
    > > children who followed their instincts to their deaths, but I don't
    > > see any deep psychological underpinning for it. To me it looks a lot
    > > what happens when a child dashes in front of a car or falls into a
    > swimming
    > > pool and drowns -- an unfortunate accident. We can't child-proof the
    > world
    > > to avoid them.
    > Hi Grant,
    > I feel sorry too ! My understanding of the facts are quite the same except
    > for not seeing any deep psychological underpinning for it.
    > I stand convinced of the fact that in many cultures children were not to
    > harmed, more for moral and ethical reasons than for the being of the kid
    > itself. In a sense we, the eldery/ the parents always discharge children
    > from
    > any responsibility. We are trying to make the world child- proof in a very
    > extreme way...
    > It is my view that ( Lamarckian) memetic inheritance, that is, inheritance
    > of thoughts, insights, opinions,... are part of the puzzle !
    > It all boils down to the point that the concept of natural selection is
    > another favorable mutation in extremis chosen by a particular memetic
    > mindset.
    > Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the view that even certain or par-
    > ticular behavioral traits of which we think they are promoted by natural
    > selection are in fact already ' chosen mutations '. Investigators would
    > those as outcomes of a Darwinian natural selection process where in fact
    > a Lamarckian one holds the key.
    > It is my suggestion that memecomplexes/ brainstructures may have
    > mechanisms fo choosing which memes suits best.
    > Thanks for the link,
    > 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)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 20:06:19 GMT