>Free will, a corollary of the 2nd axiom-consciousness, is treated as
>non-existent in religion-based memetics.
I think you'll find that I'm one of the most vocal anti-freewill people on
the list, and I've repeatedly posted my unease about giving this list any
proto-religious overtones. So, basically, I disagree with you to the hilt on
this issue.
>An idea behind religion-based memetics
>is that our thoughts are not in our control since thoughts are just an
>interaction of memes which compete with each other for survival. Supposedly,
>according to such religious memetics, one reaches a higher level on the
>evolutionary scale through an ongoing process of memes competing with one
>another for space in one's ideosphere.The idea that our minds are controlled by
>outside entities, leads to confusion and frustration from not trusting
one's own
>throught process.
1 "The idea that our minds are controlled by outside entities"
Why can't I get through to you? Our minds are not CONTROLLED BY memes! They
EMERGE THROUGH THE INTERACTION OF MEMES! And furthermore, memes are PRODUCED
BY MINDS! The relationship between minds and memes is beautifully mutual,
and gorgeously, fractally complex. The sentence that I've just quoted is a
brutal oversimplification of my beliefs about how memes work, and I'd hope,
misses the point about what many other virus posters think, too.
2 "...leads to confusion and frustration from not trusting one's own
throught process."
Only if you initially disagree with it, but are impressed by the idea.
You're the one who's getting confused. I'm committed (at the moment) to a
fairly stable view about how ideas work, and thinking about memes doesn't
confuse me, it actually makes me see a lot of phenomena (see the Supermarket
post) in a more clear and rewarding light.
>Someone infected with these ideas is likely look toward a
>"higher authority" for guidance.
Don't you yourself look to "higher authorities" on objectivism and neo-Tech
for YOUR guidance? Looking to experts for guidance is a pandemic human
strategy, and I reckon you do it as much as me, or any of the other Virus
list-mem(e)bers. Give me evidence that you don't look to people you perceive
as authorities or experts in your reply, please!
>If such a mentality spreads throughout society,
>then many people would support a purported higher authority such as big
>government to take care of them. The result, therefore, would be police state
>dynamics such as those of Nazi Germany.
1 I think that most people in Europe, America, and Australasia (sorry
if this offends anyone else, I was clumsily looking for examples of
centralised states with populations of >10 million) DO "support a purported
higher authority such as big government to take care of them". Don't they?
Prove conclusively to me that the populations of the USA, Britain, Australia
and France (eg) DON't support big governments to take care of them, or prove
that those countries are police states (Hint: this is probably easier)... or
take back your point.
2 Human beings only support a government insofar as that government's
ideas/policies (its memes) agree with the individual's memes. So, if
everyone believed there's no freewill, and a government fired memes at them
with which they disagreed, then the people would STILL DISAGREE, except
they'd think "I have no choice but that my memetic ecology should respond to
the government's memetic input with my disagreeing memetic output". Personal
example: I don't believe in freewill, but I still disagree with many of the
current UK Government's policies. So, whether or not people believe in
freewill, the processes deciding whether or not a police state arises are
the same: can the government enforce police-state policies? I'd argue,
furthermore, that the TACTICS of governments would be the same: propaganda
(mass transmission of memes to the population), coersion, and Terror. In
fact, I'd argue further- that knowing about propaganda as a memetic process
might give people strategies to ignore it (to some degree...).
> To see how this works, it is important to understand that there are 2 and
>ONLY 2 philosophical systems of thought: Platonistic and Aristotelian.
>Platonistic ideologies are characterized by
>1. Existence of "higher realities" to the one we observe,
>2. Inability to understand those realities with our minds and senses
>3. Sacrificing oneself to a "higher cause".
>4. Political structure in which the State controls individuals through
deception
>and force.
I agree with 2 quite a lot (70%), a tiny bit with 3 (20%, if the higher
authority is my family or friends)
>Aristotelian ideologies are characterized by:
>1. Existence of only one reality.
>2. Ability of the mind to figure out reality.
>3. Good action benefits individuals, which are not subordinate to a "higher
>cause".
>4. Political structures should allow people freedom of thought and action.
I agree with 1 and 2 very partially and after rephrasing them in memespeak,
and personally believe in 4 about 60-70%.
Saying that people have to subscribe to one of these philosophies or the
other, to me (feeling how I do about how human brains work), seems stupid.
Dave Pape
============================================================================
Ran out of sig. ideas.
Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1HN