Richard, stop pretending that there is a conflict. I AGREE with you, which
means I am on your side (when you write as David R., of course). I see no
conflict. One side brings rational arguments, the other side memetically
manipulates (with great results). I still wait for a discussion on ideas.
Can objectivism be compared to memetics? I don't think so. Objectivism is
a well developed philosophy -- when memetics is a set of half-jokingly
gathered observations about human interactions and how one can influence others.
The analogy to genes, noticed by Dawkins, the idea of ideas using us for a
ride -- is great. But by giving ideas a new label "memes" nothing changes
by itself. We still have to have some "laws" and clearly defined concepts.
Memetic Lexicon by Glen Grant puts together some useful definitions, but
they are only what they are: definitions. They may be very useful to stop
nonsense, for example, when you look at "Mimicry" you can better see what
Richard is doing with Level-3, ie. "imitate the semiotics of another
successful meme".
I am sure we still don't know what memetics really is. As we have no clear
concepts we are still in a stage of adolescent masturbation by "flexing
meme-space on the fly". I am really disappointed with Richard and his
pseudo-jokes, and for that matter, I am also disappointed with those most
vocal, who have just admitted they have not read "The Virus of the Mind".
Just masturbating. Fuck...
Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159