>> If people don't have the words and
>>concepts to understand how you are controlling them, they will not be so aware
>>of how they are being manipulated, much less stop your manipulation.
>Ah, I believe you're talking about memes intended reduce a person's memetic
>immunity, to dismantle or subvert their critical faculties so as to lay
>them open to infection by a new meme complex. In the Lexicon, I call such
>memes "immuno-depressants". Not a very elegant or pithy term, I'll admit...
Glenn--Another great identification but as you admit, packaged in a way that it
is not a "good meme".
>> For instance, one country that has a really corrupt judicial system is
>>France, where people are guilty until proven innocent. So, anyone who is
>>arrested and cannot prove innocence, might be thrown in jail or executed. I
>>read
>>somewhere that the French language has no word for "fair play".
>franc-jeu, "frank/straightforward play"
>I suspect that whoever said it didn't mean it literally.
I don't think it was meant literally--it was from a fiction novel called
"Shibumi" (a great book) by Trevanian in which all cultures were put down. When
I think about the book from a memetic standpoint, the whole thing was based on
memes. The book was about an individual who was up against a
multi-billion-dollar conglomerate goverment/corporation. He didn't have their
power, but he had certain metaphors and concepts based on the oriental board
game, 'Go', that could help him beat this big conglomerate called the 'Mother
Company'.
>Your point is, of
>course, that it's very hard to think about things for which you have no
>words, and you can manipulate people if you can control their vocabulary.
>No need to slag off the French to demonstrate this - there are plenty of
>examples closer to home. Just turn on the pundit debates on CNN and watch
>them shamelessly do it to us all.
What, you're leaving my statement in context? :-)
>People have come up with thousands of words to put down memes they think
>are faulty, especially for memes they think other people shouldn't adhere
>to. They call such ideas "the devil's lies", "subversive propaganda", or
>"heresies", "treason", "silly nonsense", "dangerous twaddle" "toxic memes" for
that >matter. "poorly formed axioms", or
>"syllogistic reasonings", "weak arguments" or "tautologies"
>"Self-evidently non-objective"
Again, these are great identifications but awkward.
>But Memetics is not really in the business of identifying which memes are
>"true" or "false", "beneficial" or "detrimental". It's more about how memes
>evolve, how they reproduce, combine into schemes, compete against rivals.
>We can discuss why one meme is more contagious than another, or why some
>people are more susceptible to certain memes, or what makes a given meme
>appealing, but within Memetic discourse we can't really say which memes are
>better for you than others - except that, historically, some memes are
>demonstrably deadly.
I understand that memetics looks at language in a way that puts content and
value judgements on hold, focusing on the memes themselves and how they spread.
I have no problem with this. What I've been complaining about here are
statements like the following:
Ken wrote yesterday:
>Yes!! David R. now penetrates the Content Barrier!!
As if CoV is some sort of fraternity or club with a code of behavior that you
have to "get" to become a 'memeber'. It's like thinking memetically is somehow
superior. What a bunch of bullshit!
>A few memes (techniques for making fire, say), persist over the long term
>because they provide some practical benefit to their hosts. For each such
>demonstrably useful meme, there are a billion others that claim to be
>practical and useful, but are really just a waste of time, or are actually
>dangerous. Why can't people tell which are which? Because even memes that
>don't have any practical use can appeal to our many other needs - mostly
>emotional needs, usually having to do with assuaging insecurity.
That problem is here at CoV like anywhere. Why not give some concrete examples,
Glenn?
-David