Richard,
I understand dichotomy to form memes, and that memes act according to
saltatation (one form remains stable until a more complex arrangement
occurrs and then the former is taken in by the latter...given up for the
more evolved form). The "inferior" meme, I think is crystalized by it's
sucssor--it's form is no longer open for further modification; it doesn't
exist anymore in one sense, it exists forever within the new form in another
sense...it is not "alive". Any living form is subject to change and this
flexability prevents it from being a meme in the truest sense; though, it
could be thought of as a carrier.
Using this analogy: The inherent self , the social self, and the two forms
of ego (the link before was dead...here's the new link,
http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/shamego.jpg) forms a meme which animates a
person's consciousness. But all memes--like most complicated
systems--produce products which are not totally predictable (the industrial
revolution as a system produced industry but also a sexual revolution--who
would have guessed?). So, my notations (graphs, charts, etc.) indicate that
the ego-object/ego-observer meme produced sadism and masochism. (In
response to this?) a new meme developed which created a personal and a
social self. I think that *this* meme is not stable, it is still viable.
Using whatever forward motion is inherent in the process of meme
development--that which is not used for meme growth (stabilization), there
is a possibility that either a personal self or a social self can "harness"
this energy for its own development. The alternative is that the selves
become stably distributed within the population and their importance is
further overlooked as we come to focus on the next arrangement of consciousness.
I guess I'm saying three things: 1. The question of which (if either, the
social or personal self) will be sacrificed at the expense of the other is a
valid question, and 2. Is there a process of forward momentum or is
everything to be relegated to the viral form, and 3. What will be the
unexpected cost of relegating yet another mental process to the realm of the
meme. My notes indicate that the energy contained within the social self
and ego(s) should be utilized by the personal self to develop.
No I didn't see waiting for Godot. Is this thinking? Also, I see the ego
exploding but not imploding...can you explain that idea to me?
Brett
At 03:27 PM 9/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thursday, September 11, 1997 1:42 PM, Brett Lane Robertson
>[SMTP:unameit@tctc.com] wrote:
>> Because I implied an active ego and a passive ego as well as a self which
>is
>> constructed, I have used one more term here to refer to the concept of
>> "self" which is the construct of "Self"--I have kept the term "Self"
>and
>> "construct" and said that given Self as that which constructs and the act
>of
>> constructing, there must be that which is constructed (though I am not
>using
>> ego since I am further defining "ego" to be a interdependent on sadism
>and
>> masochism and therefore no longer either the constructor or constructed
>> (see http://www.tctc.com~unameit/shamego.jpg). Also, assuming that ego
>> becomes inflated, I am saying that this inflation must be at the expense
>of
>> something. If the Self (which does the constructing) is held
>> constant--operationally-- and ego inflates, then "self" ("social self")
>must
>> be what is expended.
>> I am also implying that the Self could be sacrificed at the expense of
>the
>> social self. Comments on what is sacrificed, the original concept of
>Self
>> ("I think") or the socially constructed self ("I am")? I have posited
>the
>> idea that the answer is not "ego" since ego is an inflation of "I"
>> begetting and beget by opposition, that it is truely only a construct;
>> though I am saying that either the self or Self is constant and that the
>> other is sacrificed to the ego.
>> Brett
>Putting aside the naming and unnamed, and positing for the nonce that
>ego/Ego and "s"elf can be both constructor and constructed, never one
>without the other and opposition does nothing more than underscore the
>dichotomy (yeah, underscore the dichotomy -- I LIKE that! My brother always
>said there are two kinds of people in the world, those who dichotomize and
>those who don't) this notion of sacrificce and self-sacrifice/"S"elf and
>exploding the Ego inward and of course outwardly the ego too explodes,
>never mind the why's or wherefores, and you call that thinking?
>
>Has anyone here seen "Waiting for Godot?"
>
>Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
>Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
>Visit Meme Central: http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of
Thursdays."
Arthur Dent
