>Nothing. What I said was, that despite the fact
>that you seem generally more objectivist than me,
>nevertheless I think I'm more scientifically
>oriented and you're more morally oriented,
>because I focus more on understanding how
>things are, and you more on how they should be.
Maybe. I'm still having trouble figuring out
exactly what you are objecting to.
>> I didn't realize that Buddhism and rationality
>> were incompatible.
>>
>I didn't say they were. I said Buddhism is
>better suited to meme control.
What do you mean by "meme control"?
>I know what he thinks about faith. As I've said
>at least twice recently in this thread, and once
>directly about the attitudes of these "big names",
>it's your methods I'm arguing with. I did say
>"what he thinks about the CoV" not "what he
>thinks about faith".
So you don't object to the content? Just the method?
What method am I using that you don't like?
>I don't understand your response. I'd have thought
>it obvious that I think the memetic paradigm is
>useful. But perhaps you can say exactly what you
>had in mind when you wrote that -- what, precisely,
>does the memetic paradigm benefit?
OK, but it will end up sounding the same. Knowing
about memetics gives someone power over their memes.
They are more wary about infection and can tell
when their buttons are being pushed and it gives
them (more) control over their response.
>Don't understand this either. What does
>"unrationality" mean?
Neither rational nor irrational. It was brought up recently
in the <faith> thread to describe a belief held independent
of logic.
>> Even if memetics was about irrationality, I think there are
>> situations where it is rational/reasonable to act in such a
>> way that could be validly interpreted as irrational/unreasonable
>> from a different perspective. Same action, different contexts.
>>
>OK! That I can agree with. In fact, it looks like
>you've come around to my point of view. Which
>is what it's all about, isn't it? What's right from
Since adopting the PCR stance a few years ago I've always said
that all my beliefs are open to criticism and change.
>one POV is wrong from another. But David, I
>never thought you could be such a relativist!
Well it turns out that I was being inconsistent, and
hypocrisy is a sin you know :-)
>Now, do you admit you've changed your mind,
>or do you try to maintain that's something you
>never have had and never will have to do? :-)
Yes, as I mentioned a couple times on other threads, I have
changed my mind about this within the last few weeks. I'm
still working on a new conceptual model (codename c-space
for "context space") to help illucidate my theory.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/