Hello everyone
Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> And I don 't think you should equate memes with patterns of value, though.
Hi Kenneth
Thank you for your reply.
Phaedrus writes:
"If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics -- Inorganic,
Biological, Social and Intellectual -- nothing is left out. No "thing,"
that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
encyclopedia, is absent." (Chap. 12, Lila)
So if we do not equate memes with patterns of value, they must be
Dynamic Quality? Yet we see Dynamic Quality cannot be described. So if
memes aren't patterns of value and they aren't Dynamic Quality,
according to the MOQ what are they?
> There are meme- complexes which we could call as such but those are then
> already evolved, that is processed/ encoded/ stored and recalled a thousand
> times before.
> Each complex consist out of 2 to a thousand particular memes working
> together as one whole. Like your definition of Quality is a meme- complex,
> it consist out of a number seperate issues combined together.
> But if you speak about Quality as a term in general it is as such a meme,
> not
> a complex. It becomes a complex if you investigate whereout the memes are
> built.
> IMO_ memes give rise to patterns of value and are in that way independent
> entities_making themselves known to humans in order to make up patterns
> of value in order to propagate them (memes) further.
> That is, BEHIND the MOQ patterns of value there are independent entities
> ( memes) which gave rise to concepts, ideas, beliefs, etc which in the end
> form patterns of value by which humans live in no way independent, because
> all sorts of other meme- complexes/ memes/ patterns of a greate value form
> obstacles to do otherwise.
Sounds a lot like God to me...
>
> And Dan, the MOQ explains not erroneously being as a human completely
> unaware of imitation_ the MOQ is not wrong, though, just a little bit,
> excuse me for the term, badly chosen I know, ignorant.
> If you were aware of which thought, of which meme, of which pattern of
> value would come up next inside your mind you could contravene them.
> In a sense, that would be against the selfish nature of the memes, no !?
> And if memes act in no way selfish, than your notion would mean that memes
> has a forsight, and that is something we excluded a long time ago.
> By the way, some indications, are telling us an opposite story.
>
> But, what you wrote, would mean that your behavior should precede the
> mind and that is contrary to all what we ( I) understand about memetics !
Thus my problem in bringing memetic theory to the MOQ, for behavior and
mind are one and the same. That is what Phaedrus' hot stove example is
all about.
> The mind imposes behavioral traits upon the body ( and on itself for that
> matter) to act in a specific way as needed.
> If you were using a chainsaw choppin ' off trees and you do come to close
> to your own legs your mind would give you a warning sign. Your mind
> will ' act' before you were left standing there with no legs !
> If behavior was left alone we were all dead a long time ago_ the mind is
> in control !!
Some years ago my chainsaw jumped on me and I quite accidentally sawed
through one of my knee caps while cutting fire wood for the winter. No
warning, just boom! A bit of a bummer since I was alone, many miles into
the forest and the rather large tree I'd just cut had fallen across the
return path of my truck (an incredibly stupid mistake looking back on
it) meaning it had to be cut up and moved before I could drive out to
get medical attention (a feat in itself as I had sawed through my left
knee and my truck was a clutch model). So I tied up a very ugly wound
with as clean a rag as I could find, wrapped my belt around my leg to
staunch the flow of blood, limped around on the other leg for 2 hours
while my boot grew squishy as it filled with blood (while continually
stopping to pull up pants that kept falling down) but finally managed to
clear a path to facilitate my escape. That is mind and that is behavior!
There is no separating mind and behavior. But control? That is the
illusion. There is no control as much as we would wish there to be. Only
a "controlled folly." That too is what the MOQ is all about.
>
> And your definition of the term meme, in the light of the MOQ, as a meme-
> tisist I agree.
> Memes are us, they give us the picture of our self and this image is one and
> the same for all humans. But we are different in that respect that each of
> us
> sees himself with their own eyes. Each of us has personal memes consisting
> out of personal ( genetic) hardware, personal learning and interests and a
> personal memory, all can be memes/ complexes and tricks and hooks I
> know...
> But if you would draw a general picture of man, it would be indeed the
> same everywhere. IMO I think you make the same mistake which many of
> us make, that is, you look at the general image where you have to look for
> what is BEHIND the picture.
If you draw back the curtain which seems to veil reality you will find
nothing there at all. Ask the quantum guys. Ask a mystic. Reality IS the
picture. There is nothing standing behind the picture of reality! Only
Dynamic Quality, which must be kept concept free.
> We do not fail to be different, we are different in that respect that each
> of
> us ' believes ' what his/ hers memes tells him to believe in order to propa-
> gate the info concerned further. For you, that is the QUALITY of the MOQ,
> your ' memes '/ your patterns of value are ( still) fighting the new info
> and
> right they are...they make you as you are...THEY ARE YOU !!
>
> And those ideas, yours, do not anything to memetic theory as such, just
> the notion that you fight memetics is important. In order to do so, the info
> about memes and the MOQ is spread. How do you do it, why, when and
> with what, that kind of stuff is important and eventually it will spread out
> to
> others on this list. They will ask themselves the question, what makes Dan
> think like that...and they will be hooked both by the MOQ and by the
> Memes, like me...
Please don't get the impression I am fighting memetic theory for I am
not, merely trying to get some sense of what it is all about.
>
> And morals are IMO not memes. Memetics has a lot to do with moral
> consequences concerning the implications of memetics on human behavior.
> Morals are patterns of value, no !?
The funny thing about patterns of value is they defy definition. There
is something very Dynamic in refusing to define reality. Your
description of memetics makes it seem to me to be a type of meta-system
on top of a system, which of course is the goal of empirical science.
Yet science itself has long since recognized no such meta-system is
possible unless there is another meta-meta-system on top and so on and
on to infinity. Clearly an unworkable solution lacking any inherent
beauty.
> So, in that respect, you can change them, they will change if new info is
> added or if info is pulled back.
> There is a difference between the moral implications of Humanrights and
> the ideology of the Humanrights. The first is very good and a pattern of
> value, the second is questionable. Do we impose Humanrights upon nations
> which do not feel mush about people !? Is that a good thing !? I wonder...
Who determines what is good and what is not? In the MOQ, value
determines what is good, and the MOQ gives us a moral hierarchy to
determine the evolution of value. A political example might be Castro in
Cuba (or substitute the name and country of any dictator). All
repressive regimes must kill intellectual value in favor of social value
and this is clearly a lower level dominating a higher one and therefore
immoral according to the MOQ. Not only do we have a right to impose
human rights, we have a moral obligation to do so.
I live in a country that routinely kills its citizens, mostly for being
poor, black or retarded. The general consensus here seems to be that
that is ok as long as that person is really guilty of the crimes they
stand accused of, and the way it looks that will not change any time
soon. Is that right? It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong... it is
the law! And it looks like we got us a cowboy in the White House... but
is that good? I leave that for others to decide. :)
>
> I will post an issue on that shortly !!
Looking forward to it.
>
> I hope you see a clear sky...
The sky is too filled with light to be clear...
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST