Thank you :)
> The fact that we are having this discussion,
> implies that we have fundamentally accepted that rationality controls the
> memesphere. If memes controlled our rationality, there would be no point in
> further discussion, since we could not rationally discuss anything.
True, there would be no point, but we've instantly assumed that rationality is
not a meme. Alex Williams proposed the oposite, in that rationality /is/
a meme. Since I'm not really decided on the point, I'm not going to
argue one way or the other consistently, I'm just going to say what I think
at the time, until I make a proper decision. Anyway, the point I was
trying to get round to is that we wouldn't necessarily know that we
were not discussing this topic rationally, if rationality is a meme. Surely
it's infected us (if it exists) because our memespheres support it. If
this is the case, then to you it may be a perfectly "rational" way of
thinking, whilst to others it is irrational. Thoughts?
> The notion
> that our rationality controls our memesphere is what is accepted axiomatically
> as a given. It does not require proof or explanation.
Erm ... *All* things (if they are to be universally accepted) require proof
or explanation. If they didn't, philosophers would never have existed :)
> The idea that 'our ability to think rationally' is only a meme can be used to
> put people in a submissive controllable state.
I like this. I don't think this is the rationality meme that we've got here,
it's a meme of "Rationality is a meme". Is that what's called a metameme?
It is not the same as rationality being a meme though.
> When people accept ideas that
> memes are like a higher power or that our thoughts are either controlled by
> memes or arise through the interaction of memes, they become susceptible to
> control by others, since it is generally accepted that thoughts and actions are
> not one's own, just a consequence of memes.
Aren't we constantly being manipulated by others? Aren't we constantly manipulative?
I think we are.
Drakir