From: Freeman Craig Presson (dhr@iname.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 1999 - 22:59:26 MDT
On 8 Jun 99, Emlyn.ORegan wrote:
> I've read a little, but not much, about memes. I'm impressed by the
> concept
> (meme)!
>
> Looking at all this gun debate, couldn't all this debate be phrased in
> terms of memes about untrustworthy government, slippery slope of
> non-purist stance in regard to rights, this is just what hitler would say
> (or you are evil), etc...
>
I'm not sure where I would put memes in the hierarchy of mental
constructs, but it seems to me that you have given some examples
that I would definitely call memes mixed with some that are at
some higher level. I would call love of freedom a meme, neophilia
another, and consider rationalism, for want of a better word, to be a
basic meme that differentiates most of "us" from most of "them".
Ideas and value judgments like "content [of this thread] does not
justify volume" I would class as concepts that are based on various
memes that determine what values you are likely to assign to the
given content.
My ideas on the subject are pretty half-baked. I should probably go
do some reading, too, except that I am infected with the <soft
science and philosophy are horseshit> meme :)
> Maybe the whole thing would get interesting if we started restricting
> ourselves to phrasing messages in terms of memetic content. So the above
> becomes:
>
> <MEME: MEMES ARE GOOD>
> <MEME: GUN DEBATE IS POINTLESS> + <MEME: CONTENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY
> VOLUME>
>
> <MEME: A NEW WAY IS BETTER THAN THE OLD WAY FOR THE SAKE OF NEWNESS ALONE>
> + <MEME: MEMES ARE GOOD> + <MEME: CONTENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY VOLUME>
>
-- fcp@traveller.com (Freeman Craig Presson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:06 MST