Re: Ontology (was Meme Conference)

t (JakeSapien@aol.com)
Thu, 20 May 1999 18:56:11 EDT

From: <JakeSapien@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:56:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Ontology (was Meme Conference)
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

In a message dated 5/19/99 3:06:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
robin@faichney.demon.co.uk writes:

>>>Moving on.
>
>The existence of selves are not reducible to merely successful
[snip]

I don't think there's any point in going over all that again.
--
Robin Faichney >>

I certainly could understand that sentiment, but then why say this?

>>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!<<

It may or may not be dead, and it may or may not be pointless, but if you
think there is more to be said then by all means don't be shy. Or were you
just teasing us?

Is it the "having a self" that is a highly successful memeplex, or are there
various "brands" of "selfishness" that are highly successful memeplexes
related to having a self? I could see the latter, but not the former.

If you were just teasing, I will understand your non-reply. But if not, I
will be interested in your answer.

-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