on 14/12/00 11:47 pm, Gord Sellar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As a precis, I am trying to demonstrate the relativism (moral, cultural) of
> some kind (although not the strawmannishly bad disreputable version that
> often gets presented here) is implicit in the idea of memes. I also make a
> few arguments about what is missing in memes that could be supplied by
> pairing the parallels from discourse analysis and the reams of theory about
> ideology, as well as analysing the history of certain components of
> ideologies, which I identify with individual memes.
>
I think that relativism is orthogonal to memes. Relativism is false in
relation to objective matters (biological evolution is true, Lysenkoism and
creationism are false) but necessarily true in relation to the entirely
subjective (my personal preference for green cannot be falsified by anyone
else preferring another colour.)
> Which means, in essence, that it's just a neat metaphor for a concept that
> (at least until it began to become in Right-wing US-speak synonymous with
> "communism" or "utopianism", ignoring the fact that EVERYONE has ideology,
> including capitalist republicans) served perfectly well: "ideology."
>
> But how can it be that "ideology" or "memes" don't necessitate relativism?
> How is relativism not implicit in the idea of memes? If all ideas spread
> because of their advantages and disadvantages to their hosts, and the only
> way they relate to the world is through the effects of their being held by
> a given host in a given environment (rather than any inherent truth or
> validity in the idea), and one speaks of memes in any totalizing way (which
> it seems is done here quite often), then how can one then turn around and
> assert that one's ideas happen to be "true"? That's hypocritical.
Insofar as an ideology makes claims or has logical consequences which are
testable against reality then it can be 'true' or 'false'. So various
strands of racist and sexist ideology are false because they posit a model
of genetic determinism that is falsified by science. Ideological responses
to crime and punishment are testable and falsifiable by sociology,
criminology and penology giving facts on how people become criminals, the
effectiveness of different sentencing policies, custodial regimes,
recidivism rates and so on.
>
> Sure, with models of the world and maybe even with models of the self we
> can experiment, refine, and falsify certain things. But those are the
> *easy* questions, the convergent questions. [I don't seek to demean
> science, as much as to say that when scientists look for an answer, there
> is a sense in which they are hunting "it", something that actually exists
> and can be found and verified and demonstrated. The pre-existence of one's
> "solution" makes the job "easier" in that a solution is known to exist for
> every question, even if it's very complex and could potentially take
> forever to find.]
Until very recently in human history these were the *hardest* questions -
there were no good answers and no way of getting them.
> When you look at divergent questions -- generally, the
> ones that tend to be the subject of philosophy, literature, the arts, and
> religions, such as "what does human mean?" or "what is good and what
> evil?", you find that the closest we can get in any kind of scientific
> exploration is to see that most (all?) human societies have a certain set
> of things that they are interested in and anxious about, and thus have
> rules about.
We are the third chimpanzee. A recognition of that doesn't embrace the
naturalistic fallacy.
>
> For example, if all moral codes have to do with exposure to memes, and
> nothing to do with any absolute right and wrong, then one cannot take a
> stance other than relativist with any reasonable consistency. That doesn't
> mean that one need surrender and say it's okay for cultures to practice
> infibulation on their girls, for example. Far from it. But one cannot call
> upon any perfect source of wisdom or moral authority with which to condemn
> such an action. One *can* draw upon observation to note that women who
> undergo such procedures tend to be in poor health for a long time, and that
> it is painful, and so on. Likewise, some people in cultures that practice
> infibulation will draw upon their "observation" and say that it cultivates
> modesty and sexual propriety among women to degrees unseen in the West, and
> that this is good for the whole society which is more stable and "good"
> morally. [This is simplistic of course because no culture is monolithic.]
But the (necessity of) patriarchal control of women is falsified by the
success of other societies, as are the methods of control of behaviour. So
these memes are not objectively true. The mutilation and coercion of
individuals to satisfy false ideologies isn't a matter of relativism.
Like the unnecessary male circumcision in the USA.
>
> So maybe what I'm getting at here (as opposed to the main point I was
> trying to make before) is that your analysis neglects the context and
> purposiveness of ideologies, which is one thing I think is a weakness in
> the way I've encountered thus far -- has anyone extended the analogy to
> include things like meme-warfare? One would see intracultural and
> extracultural memic warfare going on if one applied the insights of
> discourse analysis, or, in the language of another set of disciplines, the
> insight we get from analysing "ideology" as an expression of "class" and
> "power".
>
I think the strength of the idea of memes is that they are blind to meaning,
just as there is no teleology to genes in biological evolution. The
creationism meme might be successful in getting you elected to the school
board in Kansas, and less successful in getting PhD funding for a biology
degree.
>>> The self-help meme probably does cut down on social welfare taxes and
>>> involvement, but I think it's also tied to a whole bunch of stuff
>>>
>> The *content* of the meme ties into a bunch of stuff which is irrelevant to
>> its *value to the host*. The point of the memetic analysis is that the
>> content of the meme can be true or untrue, but it is the advantage or
>> disadvantage that it bestows on the carrier that matters for its success.
>
> In other words, that ideas become popular on bases other than absolute
> truth or even in many cases pragmatic validity. Which is essentially the
> key point in any version of relativism -- in that relativism simply asserts
> this about all ideology,
Which is where it is wrong.
> including that held by the person who is invoking
> the relativism. All that means is that, if one uses the concept of the
> meme seriously, and believes in its validity, they would have a very hard
> time reconciling it with any kind of belief in absolute truth or morality.
> To really believe in memes, you've either *got* to be a relativist, or
> you've got to be an arrogant bastard who thinks he or she is above the
> meme-infestation that everyone else is subject to.
To save you from the shame of insulting my mother I will assert that my vast
cold intellect and the pelagic depth of my thinking does raise me above the
common herd. Or you can send me your bollocks in a jar of formaldehyde.
>
>>> Finally, if you think religion makes things easier, try living as an
>>> ordained priest for a little while.
>>
>> Most of the clerics I have encountered seem quite happy, and tend to be
>> long-lived too (a sign of low stress).
>
> I'm familiar with a wider variety of experiences, I guess. I know a few
> clerics I've known have had to struggle . . . and by the way, maybe the
> reason they seem so long-lived is because they're increasingly old, as in
> young people are less and less willing to take on the life that is offered
> in such a position. And I did say "priest", by the way. Different set of
> expectations that some other clerical orders.
As an atheist I have mostly encountered Catholics, since they are the most
numerous. Celibacy seems a very minor issue (to me) compared to accepting
the supernatural.
>
>> Perhaps they are in the wrong religion?
>
> Well, maybe. You know what I think about that, I'm sure. :) But I think all
> religions involve certain kinds of leaps of faith, and some people agonize
> more about them than others.
Leaping, bouncing, levitatating - I avoid all that.
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
