Subject:
|
memes (Was: Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:59:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1213 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> I loathe the term "meme." It seems to focus on form to the exclusion of
> substance, as if ideas were magical incantations that just take over and
> needn't be analyzed very deeply.
Consider the following bits of everyday information:
* Tanoy message in the subway stating that all trains westbound are delayed
* The release date for a software package is May 2000
* Street Preacher (Manic or not) telling you that your soul will only be saved
by reading the good book.
* A windows message telling you that you MUST restart windows NOW. (Again)
* A pop star claiming he wants to fight another pop star in a live televised
event.
* Larry claiming that he doesn't make misteaks.
* A news report claiming that Dictator W is torturing X people in country Y,
during recent conflict Z.
My challenge for you is to reorder this list, so that the bit of information
that should be considered the most accurate comes first, and the least accurate
comes last.
Then put in a dividing line between useful information and useless information.
Everybodys list and line will be different - in any one instance they might be
all wrong, in another they might be all right.
My point is that we do accept memes everyday, whether we are aware of it or
not. They are as useful and un-useful at the same time, the degree to which
depends on how analytical the person is I guess.
> I think the meme theory appeals to a void in the mind of bankrupt
> intellectuals with no genuine philosophical theories.
I won't take offence at that :) I think the theory of memes can be liberating.
Once you know just how little reason you have for doing the things you do, you
can take steps to correct them.
Like it or not - people DO cling to ideas, or rather the ideas cling to them.
What is a genuine philosophical theory, and why is it intrinsically
incompatable with the meme theory?
I can see how memes could be incompatable with a 'genuine' theological theory,
if that's what you meant?
> But then the point of a "meme" is that it primarily refers
> to junk that happens to sweep through a chattering population.
Anyone who has read Dawkins would never claim that he was unlikely to air his
personal views on a subject - his intense dislike of religion and 'frivolous'
information being his two main meme examples!
But his tendancy to air his pet-peeves shouldn't distract you from the more
important implications of meme theory - which is that they don't primarily
refer to junk ideas (i.e. the list at the top).
Richard
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| I loathe the term "meme." It seems to focus on form to the exclusion of substance, as if ideas were magical incantations that just take over and needn't be analyzed very deeply. I think the meme theory appeals to a void in the mind of bankrupt (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
