Jean-Jaques Rousseau (hereafter refered to as JJR) is purely incidental at the
moment. He wrote a very interesting book, which I enjoyed, and found a lot of it
quite sensible (it's also full of quite a lot of crap!).
The problem appears to be definitions in a lot of cases, so I'm going to recant
some of the things I've posted, due to the effective persuasion by others that
I was incorrect in my assumption/definition/belief/understanding in some areas.
First, I will ditch the idea of "dangerous memes" and "counter-productive memes"
in favour of just "memes" with varying effects on the host's surroundings. I still
may consider some memes "bad" and some "good", but that is all subjective.
I'm not necessarily trying to change the world for my better or worse (be nice
though, wouldn't it - and then I could be your God !!!! - assuming that I'm not
already - hahahahaha). What I'm trying to put across is how nice it would be if
society could change rapidly enough to make the people who put the effort into that
change benefit from it also. It's all very fine making things better for the next
generation, but think of the motivation there would be in the world if people *knew*
that if they really want it to happen, and it really is "good", then it will!
Well, here's some revamped questions that I'll put forward then, updated from the
first post on this subject:
*Can memes be eliminated by simple logic and persuasion, or are stronger methods
required?
*Is there a format for society where change is easily obtainable if the people want it?
*Can society ever reach a state of harmony?
-Does it want to?
-What is the definition of "harmony"?
*Should the law represent solely the beliefs of society, or should it be an initiator
of change?
I hope that makes things a little less messy. Of course, feel free to add questions
and defintions etc..
Towards the Pub....
Drakir
-----------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
-----------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
-----------