> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:26:46 -0500
> From: Eric Boyd <6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca>
> Subject: Re: virus: Normativity
>
> Hmmm. You are right that a line "in theory" can be drawn between
> memetics the "science" and memetics the "normative theory" I think it's
> a fairly small line, though.
>
> Example:
>
> 1) Memetics tells us that ideas will spread better if they are more
> clearly stated. Clean langauge, simple vocabulary, and at least some
> lip service to the gramatics conventions of the day...
>
> That is the science
>
> 2) One wants ones meme's to spread
>
> This is the normative step. Anyone want to argue with it?
>
> Conclusion: 3) One should speak clearly.
>
The fact that successful memes cause their hosts to want to propagate
them does not mean that there is any moral value in propagating them.
If a meme can cause it's host to regard an idea as possesing moral
value, then that meme is likely to be propagated by that host. The fact
that one wants one's memes to spread is not the normative step. I
freqently feel the urge the propagate my genes, but that doesn't mean
that taking every opportunity to plant my seed in fertile soil is the
right thing to do. It does however fit the pattern you provided above.
1) My genes are more likely to propagate if I have unprotected sex at
every opportunity.
2) "I" (at some level) want to propagate my genes.
3) Therefore I should have unprotected sex at every opportunity.
Or how about this one:
1) I want more money.
2) Regularly witholding the security deposites on my ex-tenants'
appartments will get me more money. Occassionally it will backfire and
I'll have to go to court, but in the long run, I make more money by
cheating them as a matter of course.
3) Therefore I should regularly withoud security deposites regardless of
the condition of the appartment when the tenent moves out.
That "should" is an imperative of reason, not virtue. Given that I have
a specific goal, I should take the necessary and available means to
acheiving that goal. The normative step would come in justifying one's
goals, and the fact that something appeals to me does not give it moral
value. Memetics does not provide a framework for selecting ends which
have moral value.
Take care. -KMO
> All I'm saying is that while memetics is *not* a normative theory, the
> actual act of turning it into one is usually "transparent", i.e. assumed
> becuase it's so *obvious*.
>
> > An alternate form of the question that may be worth examining is, what
> > normative theory should Church of the Virus adherents adopt for use with
> > memetics in reaching decissions about which memes we ***should***
> > propagate.
>
> I don't think any decision needs to be made. Like the Church of
> Freethought, I think the very act of saying that there are no
> particualar meme's we would like to advance is well and good. All we
> need to push is *ways of thinking *about* meme's* Rationality, thought
> tools. "To travel is better than to arrive". Any definite answer to
> any particualar question is always open for re-evaluation. The *way*
> that one gets answers is *more*important* than the answers themselves.
> Cast off the Chains of "Truth"! Freethought!
>
> Of course, I don't have any control over the CoV or over the Church of
> Freethought, so all this is just my position...
>
> ERiC
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Eva-Lise Carlstrom <eva-lise@eskimo.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: Memes and other replicators
>
> I'll have to reread Richard's post a couple more times, since I know I
> still have fuzzy places in my mind regarding the differences between memes
> and other kinds of replicators. But I wanted to comment on one part of it
> now.
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Richard Brodie wrote:
>
> > Any attempt to explain all of culture by looking at meme replication is
> > doomed to failure. Bloom's superorganisms and Dawkins's mind viruses
> > are indeed cultural replicators that evolve to promote their own
> > survival and spread. Perhaps "memetics", if it implies that memes are
> > the be-all and end-all, is a poor name for our science after all.
>
> But it doesn't. Any more than any other science or philosophy assumes by
> its mere existence that it covers all possibilities for understanding.
> Well, maybe some hard-line reductionist physicists do....But in the main,
> fields cover certain aspects of reality. Are you suggesting that
> what we're calling "memetics" does or should cover other cultural
> replicators besides memes, or are you just noting that there are some?
> At any rate, cultural replicators that are not themselves memes, if I
> understand you correctly about what sorts of things those are, are either
> made up of memes or supported in their replication by memes, so are
> readily includable under a "memetics" heading, in those aspects of
> themselves.
>
> Eva,
> who should write cover letters but thinks she'll go play NetHack instead
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:31:24 -0400
> From: "John ''I Take Large Steps'' Williams" <prefect@tricon.net>
> Subject: Re: virus: Witnessing to Liberals
>
> At 12:26 AM 6/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> It's on a web site...
>
> follow the link to:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Liberalism.html.
>
> - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Williams ICQ Address: 1213689 prefect@tricon.net
> - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "See my loafers? Former gophers!"
> Various Artists: Raising the Tide of Mediocrity for Two Years
> http://www.3wave.com/~prefect/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:55:19 -0700
> From: Richard Brodie <RBrodie@brodietech.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Memes and other replicators
>
> Eva wrote:
>
> [Brodie]
> >> Any attempt to explain all of culture by looking at meme replication is
> >> doomed to failure. Bloom's superorganisms and Dawkins's mind viruses
> >> are indeed cultural replicators that evolve to promote their own
> >> survival and spread. Perhaps "memetics", if it implies that memes are
> >> the be-all and end-all, is a poor name for our science after all.
> >
> >But it doesn't. Any more than any other science or philosophy assumes
> >by
> >its mere existence that it covers all possibilities for understanding.
> >Well, maybe some hard-line reductionist physicists do....But in the
> >main,
> >fields cover certain aspects of reality. Are you suggesting that
> >what we're calling "memetics" does or should cover other cultural
> >replicators besides memes, or are you just noting that there are some?
>
> I was responding to a sentiment in the JoM list that is not present here
> in CoV, so it's not surprising that you were surprised. There was some
> squabbling over the scope of "meme." I personally am equally interested
> in memes and in mind viruses -- perhaps even more in the latter.
>
> >At any rate, cultural replicators that are not themselves memes, if I
> >understand you correctly about what sorts of things those are, are
> >either
> >made up of memes or supported in their replication by memes, so are
> >readily includable under a "memetics" heading, in those aspects of
> >themselves.
>
> Right you are.
>
> Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.425.688.8600
> CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA USA
> http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
> Do you know what a "meme" is? http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:16:35 -0700
> From: DJS <deron@pacifier.com>
> Subject: RE: virus: Belief and Knowledge
>
> >From: Reed Konsler[SMTP:konsler@ascat.harvard.edu]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 8:13 AM
>
> >>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 19:35:44 -0700
> >>From: DJS <deron@pacifier.com>
>
> >>In this light, consider four definitions:
> >>1. Knowledge.... Belief in accordance with the Evidence.
> >>2. Credulity....... Belief despite the Evidence.
> >>3. Skepticism... Disbelief despite the Evidence
> >>4. Thrift............ Disbelief in accordance with the (lack of) =
> Evidence
>
> < Original text reintroduced for clarity>
> >>SKEPTICISM is an unwillingness to commit to any position. Since
> >>(as all debaters know) it is far easier to oppose than propose, the =
> >>safest intellectual position is often one of absolute skepticism
>
> >Wow, I'm sold. This was great. I also like your characterization
> >of the intellectual skeptic, which was something I was going to bring
> >up. Way to define words!
>
> That was the most exciting "discovery" I had in thinking about all of =
> this. It gave me intellectual footing to say exactly why a constructive =
> argument is more valuable, uncertainty and all, than a secure yet =
> vacuous statement of absolute doubt.
>
> I wrote in my notes: "...interestingly it stresses that the faith of the =
> pious is no more irrational than the nihilism of the intellectual". =
> [note: "it" refers to a graph I'd drawn]=20
>
> >Deron Rocks!
>
> Thank you kindly!=20
>
> At the risk of sounding smarmy, I'll return the compliment by quoting a =
> message I sent to David a few weeks ago:
>
> "...Reed's 4/28/97 posting was nothing short of brilliant and deserving =
> of the rarest of all compliments -- hardcopy."=20
>
> [http://maxwell.lucifer.com/virus/archive/0805.html] =20
>
> Cheers,
>
> Deron
> ___________
>
> "This book was written in 1911 but since then my views have undergone =
> significant development....Whitehead convinced me that the concept of =
> matter is a logical fiction." --- B. Russell, _The Problems of =
> Philosophy_, Foreword to the German Translation, 1924
> ________________
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:31:00 +0100
> From: Robin Faichney <r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: virus: Memetics: our obligations
>
> David McFadzean wrote:
> >At 07:38 PM 25/06/97 -0500, Eric Boyd wrote:
> >>> The short answer is this. If not your memes, whose?
> >>
> >>hmmmm. Not sure I like the inherent selfish nature of that answer.
> But
> >>then, life is about selfishness, eh?
> >
> >Consider that your options are exhausted by only three possibilities:
> > - promote memes you believe in
> > - promote memes you don't believe in
> > - abstain
> >
> >Now which do you choose?
>
> I'm training "my" memes to promote themselves.
>
> Actually, that's a lie -- I'm not bothering to do any
> such thing, just assuming that any meme worth
> its salt is already into self-promotion. But I do
> try to keep the channels (output *and* input) wide
> open.
>
> Robin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:39:51 +0100
> From: Richard Jones <jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com>
> Subject: Re: virus: Tabacco mind virus.
>
> Tony Hindle wrote:
>
> > BTW do you fancy brad pit?
>
> Wouldn't kick it's arse out of bed for farting :)
>
> > I believe that the memetic engineers working for tabacco (thanks
> > again Eva, I will keep trying harder with my spelling, I still remember
> > the conditions for selection for breeding in the future) P.L.C.
> > cynically exploit the kids tendency to "do somthing that is bad for
> > you". They might even have created this culture wrt ciggys in the first
> > place. You Drakir, you are a spreader of the pro-smoking memes even if
> > you dont know it, you have been exapted by the tabacco PLC to do their
> > work, statistically your utterings will probably be responsible for the
> > death of another.
>
> I believe in doing the things I enjoy. I actually enjoy smoking. I
> don't think I'm addicted to nicotine, because I smoke Silk Cut Ultra
> Lows, and can go (if required) for a long time without needing a
> cigarette. I don't care if people smoke or not. It's your own choice.
> I think what you're abscribing to me is the simple effect of peer
> pressure. That's nothing special, it happens with everything that a
> youth could ever get into.
>
> - --
> Drakir
> - --------------------------------------------
> "We are the New Breed ... We are the Future"
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Drahcir/
> - --------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:07:22 +0200
> From: Chitren Nursinghdass <Chitren.Nursinghdass@ens.insa-rennes.fr>
> Subject: RE: virus: Memetics: our obligations
>
> Things replicate because
> >they are IDEAL. I would suggest that the essential requirement for the
> >replication of memes is that they approach the ideal...to improve one's work
> >would therefore be more important than to share one's work.
> >
> >Brett
>
> Hi Brett,
>
> nice precisions, but I'm thinking long the lines of a generic
> variation-selection process, where the important thing is
> variation or the conscious preservation of variability.
>
> The idea here is to provide a new way of looking at things to
> people. This so as to bring about a paradigm shift as soon as
> possible.
>
> Even thought the term meme has been around since the 70's many
> people don't know about it, or consider it to be bull or
> proto-science. I believe it will be accepted very soon, but how
> soon actually depends on the spreading of the meme meme.
>
> The important thing is to preserve variability. THe rest is the
> selection by people of what they choose to believe in, to apply
> to propagate, to study, to teach, etc...
>
> Certainly perfecting on's work is highly laudable because this
> improves the information structure (which is more likely to
> prevail against spatio-temporal disturbances).
>
> But isn't education also very important ? Would I find people
> to talk to about memes if Dawkins never proposed to view ideas
> like this ? And if his ideas weren't discussed at length in
> books and on the net ?
>
> I think somebody else may have even proposed something similar
> before Dawkins but in other terms.
>
> Yash.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:25:10 +0200
> From: Chitren Nursinghdass <Chitren.Nursinghdass@ens.insa-rennes.fr>
> Subject: Re: virus: Memetics: our obligations
>
> ERiC sez :
>
> >Why do we need "leisurely meme spread?" Surely sppeding up the process
> >of memetic evolution would be benifiticial, even if it *only* increased
> >the memetic variation faster. (there would be other effects too...)
>
> Yep speeding it all up would be fine by me, But how where do you find
> the time to find the ways of speeding it all up of you don't have time
> to think about it all because other more pressings stuff are happening
> all over the place.
>
> I for one would find it difficult to think clearly about how to bootstrap
> the quality of human life should a heavy fiery object fall next to me or
> actually on me.
>
> Yash.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:35:51 +0200
> From: Chitren Nursinghdass <Chitren.Nursinghdass@ens.insa-rennes.fr>
> Subject: Re: virus: Memes and other replicators
>
> The whole thing is quite interesting now,
>
> The term meme then should be reserved for mind ideas. Ok.
>
> But then one should find another word for the intermediate
> replicant form when one meme passes from a brain to another,
> be it by language, written or spoken, depicted, etc...
>
> There should also be a science of achetypes as very strong
> generic replicators from which memes derive. Archetypes
> as being to memes what genes are to phenotypes (or some similar
> transition).
>
> Even self-replication is a powerful self-replicating archetype.
>
> A symbol for an archetype can be interpreted by a mind (a memeset)
> as several different memes.
>
> What about memes stored in their dormant replicant form on a
> CDROM which is never interpreted by a human ?
>
> They are then in a type of spore form, because if one day somebody
> starts interpreting them again, then there is potential for spread.
>
> Which is why I think that there should be the study of these things :
>
> 1. Science of Archetypes
> 2. Science of Memes
> 3. Physical Theory of Information.
>
> The third is the more generic. Then 1. Then 2.
>
> Yash.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:39:13 +0200
> From: Chitren Nursinghdass <Chitren.Nursinghdass@ens.insa-rennes.fr>
> Subject: Re: virus: Original Thoughts
>
> Hi ERiC
>
> >I used to think that I had been born into a /boring/ era. I had great
> >dreams of being a Knight in Shining Armor, wielding a sword and
> >shield... sadly such professions are quite rare these days...
>
> Archetypes again, Percival, Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, the Holy Grail,
> HOrus, Horem-Hem, Harpocrates, Lohengrin, etc...
>
> The difficulties encoutered by the heroes, hierophants, etc... are
> universal experiences. Though the terms change, the process are generic
> methinks.
>
> >"Welcome to the Third Milennium, dawn of Cold Fusion, Heavy Weather, and
> >the Digital Crusaders..."
>
> And don't forget free-energy, time travel etc...
>
> And bootstrapping of learning.
>
> Yash.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:45:51 +0200
> From: Chitren Nursinghdass <Chitren.Nursinghdass@ens.insa-rennes.fr>
> Subject: RE: virus: Belief and Knowledge
>
> Jun 1997 19:35:44 -0700
> >>>From: DJS <deron@pacifier.com>
> >
> >>>In this light, consider four definitions:
> >>>1. Knowledge.... Belief in accordance with the Evidence.
> >>>2. Credulity....... Belief despite the Evidence.
> >>>3. Skepticism... Disbelief despite the Evidence
> >>>4. Thrift............ Disbelief in accordance with the (lack of) Evidence
>
> Knowledge as the Holy Grail... Sounds good to me.
>
> Truly the path is a razor's edge like the Sirah Bridge in the Holy
> Quran.
>
> Balance is the key. A weighing of both sides to find the way of the
> middle, the way of the middle pillar.
>
> Or during times of crisis, somebody really good has to fight somebody
> really bad to annihilate themselves and restore a new equilibrium.
>
> Equi-Libra. Equal Liberty. Freedom for all.
>
> Yash.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of virus-digest V2 #170
> ***************************