Hi,
David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com> writes:
Hmmm... see, I haven't finished the book yet (just made it to chapter 13). However, I've just given
a couple of hours of thought -- and, you know, I really think Blackmore's onto something. If memetics can explain the origin of complex "design" and knowledge in culture, then *why* to we need to postulate "creativity"? It's like one of Dennett's unnecessary "sky hooks". The only real objection doesn't address the truth of the issue, it address the nature of that truth: ugly and immoral!
If we are nothing but the hosts for memes and genes, and one doesn't need to postulate freewill or creativity to explain the origin of design (in any of it's forms) around us, then where is the meaning? (of life)
And the answer is: meaning emerges when we trick ourselves with the user illusion -- when we pretend that we have some control, that we can (as Richard would say) develop clarity of purpose and change the world to what we would like to see. Is that *really* just a user illusion? And if so, does that in any way decrease how meaningful it is?
<<
Suggestions for a (short) definition?
How about something along the lines of
VIRUS: 1) Something that replicates by infecting a host. 2)
(capitalized)
The Church of Virus, a memetically engineered religion founded on the
web in 1994.
>>
Hmmm. No. I'd like to convey something of the spirit of Virus as well e.g.
VIRUS: 1) Something that replicates by infecting a host. 2) (capitalized) The Church of Virus, a memeplex which has already made you want to {click here}
Insidious, no?
ERiC