Re: Ontology (was Meme Conference)

t (JakeSapien@aol.com)
Tue, 18 May 1999 18:53:40 EDT

From: <JakeSapien@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:53:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Ontology (was Meme Conference)
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

In a message dated 5/17/99 9:52:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
robin@faichney.demon.co.uk writes:

<< Incidentally, I'd suggest that evolution beyond naive realism would
allow those memeticists who are not Buddhists, or thus inclined, to
accept Blackmore's message as meaning that the only place for the self
IN MEMETICS is that of a highly successful memeplex. There being more
to life, of course, than memetics! >>

hmmmmm....

Evolving beyond? Which direction is that?

What exactly is "naive realism"?

Moving on.

The existence of selves are not reducible to merely successful
meme-complexes. Not only is that greedy reductionism, but it is also
misattribution. Undeniably the existence of selves has profound impact on
memetic/cultural evolution, and in turn memetics plays an important role, in
determining the characters of selves.

But "having a self" (perhaps "selfishness"?) itself is not a meme. It is
resultant of a degree of complex awareness which is inscribed not only
memetically, but also and initially genetically into each human organism.

-JS

===============================================================
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