Hi Kenneth, Jonathan, Roger and All
KENNETH:
On the other hand, what there seems to be missing by MOQ, is
the existence of compatible disciplines. That is, memetics can be
applied into all sort of practical relevancy. Metaphysics,
philosophers, engineers, computerfreaks, biologists,...apply
memetical patterns in their investigations to understand culture/
society and humankind better. I do understand that with the books
in hand you can do the same, but it seems to me that the impact
on a scientific level will be low... Or its Forum is that the place to
be...? Or, can you built in Pirsig his insights into existent
disciplines, like memetics ?
Well, that memetics is considered a �discipline� is news to me. A
couple of books (Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore) does not a
discipline make, any more than two seminal books by Pirsig
makes him accepted in academe.
To claim that memetics holds the same scientific standing as
genetics is a real stretch. Among the scoffers of memetic theory
are such heavyweights as Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard professor
of zoology, and Robert Aunger, Cambridge anthropologist. Not that
they are necessarily the last word, but they do indicate that doubts
about memetics are not frivolous.
Further, I can claim with equal veracity that the MOQ can be, to use
your words, �applied into all sort of practical relevancy.
Metaphysics, philosopers, engineers, computerfreaks, biologists
... apply (moral values) in their investigations to understand
culture/society and humankind better.� Nothing unique about
memes in this respect.
And, from my limited knowledge of memetic theory garnered from
various websites, it is no more explanatory than Pirisg�s value
theory. In fact, less so IMHO because like all knowledge
purporting to have the imprimatur of science, mementic theory
carefully avoids �why� questions. Why did memes appear? Why do
they want to spread? Why did humans acquire imitative skills to
make memes possible? Etc. By contrast, Pirsig addresses why�s
head on.
JONATHAN
Personally, I find this thread highly relevant to the MoQ. Pirsig
himself said he considers MoQ to be much bigger than Lila and
ZAMM. By his estimate, those two novels gave us only a few
percent. Thus, the fact that Pirsig never talked about memes by
name doesn't mean that we shouldn't. I think it might be very
useful and enlightening to try and decide whether memes are
biological or social patterns of value. IMO the answer is both.
The fact that man-made artifacts (memes) are patterns of value is
hardly significant. In the MOQ, it�s ALL patterns of value. Neither do
I hold the divisions (physical, biological, social, intellectual) in
special regard other than as used by Pirsig to point out the moral
battles going on between them. Pirsig himself says there�s
nothing new or enlightening about the divisions as such. So the
question of whether memes belong in one level or another or both
seems irrelevant to me.
Now obviously when high caliber minds like those of Kenneth,
Jonathan and Roger are attracted to memetic theory, I suspect
there is much more I need to learn. So again I ask, of what
relevance are memes to the MOQ? What meme can we use to
help us come forth with a moral principle that distinguishes a
Galileo fitting social repression from a common criminal fighting
social repression? Once we grant that the MOQ is itself a meme
is there much more to add?
Platt
PS: Thanks for you inquiry about my health, Kenneth. I'm happy to
report all's well.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
