metaphors for the masses

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 00:18:56 EST
From: Patrick Powers <powers@stat.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: metaphors for the masses

In article <3biiio$eo3@news.xs4all.nl> you write:
>
>as i've argued before in a posting that no one understood, i believe that
>gods, demons, spirits etc. were old metaphors for what we'd now think of
>as memes (m.complexes/subpools).
>through these easy-to-grasp metaphors, insight in the memetic structures of
>society was accessible for all people, also the less educated.
>
I think there is something to this, but the match is not exact.  There
are plenty of powers attributed to demons etc. that could not possibly
come from memes.  But something like the spirit of sharing definitely.

>by consistently denying the existence of gods and demons, monotheism and
>humanist science have taken away common metaphors for memes.
>The intellectualist language of -isms that replaced the old 'primitive
>memetics' was inaccessible for the masses, thereby monopolizing knowledge
>of society to the elite.
>
There is still plenty of belief in angels and devils, something like 30%
in US,  more in primitive countries.  

>the power of our modern aristocracies is based on a denial of memetics, a
>systematic suppression of old and new meme-memes/metaphors.

Doubtful.  more like an effective exploitation of memetics.

>
>what will happen when we (the new memeticists) develop simple metaphors for
>memes that can be understood by everyone, not only by intellectuals?
>this would open the way to a real democracy, in which all people understand
>what's going on in their culture, and do not depend anymore on the 'truth'
>intellectuals (politicians) tell them.
>it would be serious threat to established power.

I think it would take more than that.  There are many who can't 
find Washington DC on a map.

>
>marc de hingh

Subject: Re: metaphors for the masses
From: adrian@nickm.demon.co.uk (adrian holliwell)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 14:11:19 +0000

Might we chisel out some "jingles" to give memetics to the masses?
Should such a thing enter widespread use, society would have the tools to
forge itself relevant spiritual values from the morass of the old, which
have been rendered somewhat leaky of late under impact of the new.

--
adrian holliwell

Subject: Re: metaphors for the masses
From: nv91-asa@volga.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: 07 Dec 1994 15:49:53 GMT

marc de hingh wrote:
>as i've argued before in a posting that no one understood, i believe that
>gods, demons, spirits etc. were old metaphors for what we'd now think of
>as memes (m.complexes/subpools).
>through these easy-to-grasp metaphors, insight in the memetic structures of
>society was accessible for all people, also the less educated.

I partially disagree. I think the gods/demons/spirits are more
semi-independent systems within our minds (a bit like the characters in
our dreams or our conscience). These systems can be copied using memes,
they become "packaged" within the memes of a culture. For example,
practically all western people have been exposed to the Christian memes,
which have formed a mental structure of god inside us. These structures
are not necessarily similar, but share a few characteristics.

Note that this is how Jungian archetypes can be explained: they are
transferred through the memetic diet of a culture, and sufficiently
tenacious and important to be integrated in almost all people.


>by consistently denying the existence of gods and demons, monotheism and
>humanist science have taken away common metaphors for memes.

What about viruses?


>the power of our modern aristocracies is based on a denial of memetics, a
>systematic suppression of old and new meme-memes/metaphors.

I don't think so. While controlling what memes are spread is an important
ability for any aristocracy which wants to retain its power, the details
of memetics are not necessary. This is of course a weakness. An aristocracy
keeps its power by suppressing the memes forming other, competing aristocracies
(see for example the struggle between the old aristocrats and the burgeois,
or between industrialists and workers). They don't suppress all memes.


>what will happen when we (the new memeticists) develop simple metaphors for
>memes that can be understood by everyone, not only by intellectuals?
>this would open the way to a real democracy, in which all people understand
>what's going on in their culture, and do not depend anymore on the 'truth'
>intellectuals (politicians) tell them.

Would it? A lot of people would probably prefer the "truths", as memetics
quite unambigously points out. Even people who know about memes become infected
with them, but its new memes.

>it would be serious threat to established power.

All new memes are potential threats, but most never become dangerous (how
dangerous is "Kilroy was here"?). Some are obviously dangerous ("Smash the
State! All power to the Soviets!"), and are recognized and attacked. Others
are subtly dangerous, perhaps because they change the rules (like Internet).

[_]  ...so what?    [_]  i agree      [X]  please explain    [_]  :-)
[_]  who cares?     [X]  i disagree   [_]  stop posting      [_]  &^$@gR*!
[_]  this suckx     [_]  nonsense     [_]  waste of time     [_]  sigh...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg 				     Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se   http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

From: nv91-asa@black04.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Subject: Re: Jung (was: metaphors for the masses)
Date: 23 Dec 1994 18:38:56 GMT

Hingh wrote:
>Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
>> Note that this is how Jungian archetypes can be explained: they are
>> transferred through the memetic diet of a culture, and sufficiently
>> tenacious and important to be integrated in almost all people.
>
>Does an archetype arise in a culture as a common denominator of the memetic
>diet of that culture, in a kind of 'bottom-up' fashion?

I would agree with this. The concept of fire as a symbol of life, purity
and forcefulness is easy to come by. It is later encoded in many ways
(in stories, language, other symbols etc), and soon become standardized
within a culture.  

>Jung would defend a different view.  According to his theories, archetypes
>are equal in all cultures.  Thus we should either regard them as innate
>(genetic) patterns, or as ancient memes that evolved in some primal culture
>from which all contemporary cultures descend.
>This implies that archetypes must direct the evolution of memes 'top-down',
>actively promoting those memes that benefit the archetype's survival.

Is there any real evidence for this? What to look for is archetypes which
are not directly linked to things which are common to all cultures (like
the night, the sun or fertility), but are more "software" and could have
been done in many different ways but somehow always are done in one way. 
If there are such archetypes which recur in *all* cultures, then there 
is some evidence for this type of Archetypes.

>I do not know which approach is correct.  The truth may lie somewhere in
>between.

Its probably hard to tell. But I doubt a genetic basis for archetypes, then
we would probably find them among other primiates too. 
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg			 	  	     Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se   http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y