David M wrote:
>Memetics states that it is useful to model the transmission of behaviors in
>this way, analogous to the selfish gene theory. If you think the selfish gene
>theory implies that organisms are "nothing but" vehicles for genes then you
>are
>missing the point.
Selfish gene/meme theory is fine. It appears that it has been taken to extremes
by some memebers I've chatted (argued) with. Seeing oneself as a collection of
memes can lead to drug-like delusions as I mentioned.
I wrote:
>>. Once you enter the Mr.
>>Hyde state of believing you are just a construct of memes, all scientific
>>objectivity breaks down because most people, because of a disease of
>>mysticism
>>already in their minds, have no way of determining whether they are in
>>"experiment space" or "objective space". Mystical structures already
>>within the
>>mind are explained below:
David M wrote:
>You are doing a good job of copying Rand's writing style, right down to
>the melodramatic hyperbole. I can understand why she used it, given the
>context of her experience. I don't understand why you do.
Actually, no-I was not copying Ayn Rand. A couple of months ago, I was lurking
on an internet sex newsgroup for dominants and submissives and there were terms
such as "domme space" and "sub space" for mental states when they were
"playing". : )
David M wrote:
>Obviously you haven't read the CoV's stance on Plato. I'll reproduce it for
>you .Plato(c.428-347 BC) Father of idealism and, ipso facto, archvillain. Plato
>believed
> (snip)
I agree with what you say about Plato-(ie.how particulars of this world are
considered mere opinions.) But, based on discussions I've had, some people take
on Platonistic positions. I'm not saying that YOU do.
I wrote:
>>1. ...CoV memetics claims:
>>there are more advanced memes than the ones you have/are now, so what you
>>see is
>>not valid or believable.
Dave M wrote:
>If this is supposed to be an attack on Richard Brodie's concept of level-3
>I don't think it is a fair characterization.
I was not referring to Richard's level 3 concept in particular.
I wrote:
>>Memetics version: Don't hang on to your current beliefs, submit to a "belief
>>crisis" in which dominant memes will take over for your own good.
David M. wrote:
>Where are you getting this from?
Maybe I will take the time to give examples from writing by some memebers who
imply the above.
>One of the main purposes of the CoV is to infect people with
>critical thinking memes. I thought the influences of Objectivism were pretty
>clear in the doctrine. (Apparently not)
Yes, apparently not.
>Personally I don't think astrology has any validity whatsoever.
. When one is subjectively immersed in astology, it can seem valid. But, I've
seen no objective studies support it.
>If the CoV has any "memebers" it is because they enjoy discussing memetics
>and have a very high tolerance for abuse.
They sure as hell better have a high tolerance for abuse!: )
>Well you've certainly beaten the stuffing out of that straw man. You may
>rejoice
>at your convenience.
I just did.
David M-thanks for your response. I suppose I was wrong accusing you of being a
"high priest" of a cult. Fundamentally, I agree with you (unlike others) and I
think memetics can be discussed objectively. -David