MD A Solipsistic View on Memetics/ introduction

[Kenneth Van Oost]

Hi all,   If we take the memetic stance, Quality is not as direct introduced into evolution. Dawkins spoke about the meme- concept in his now famous book, The selfish Gene 1976, where he in the last 20 pages outlined an idea which eventually evolved into what we call nowadays memetics.   His idea was a logical end to the growing view in biology that natural selection proceeds not in the interest of the species or of the groups, nor even of the individual, but in the interest of the genes. In memetic terms, not in the interest of you, me and our behavior, but in the interest of the memes. Memes, that are those units of ( cultural/ evolutionary) info passed on in some form of communication ( imitation) between two or more organisms/ brains. Quality is probably one of the concerns of memes but is not their main objec- tive. Their goal is to propagate themselves throughout society and that without any concern about the consequences of their actions, nor do memes care either about genes or people. Memes have you, memes are you !!   In that respect, " all what is Quality is Good " is not supported by the last billion years of genetic and memetic evolution due to the fact that both (genes and memes) are selfish in nature. That is_ the patterns that did survive, may be patterns of Quality, Value or Intellect, but that is just a way seeing the things. Murder, rape, sexcrimes, war, childabuse etc. did survive as memetic lineages, as metaphysical entities if you like, and in some way, we can determine those attrocitoes as bilogical advantages, but we can 't call them Qualitative strategies ( in general) can we !? Although some, Thronhill/ Palmer and I include myself are beginning to reject those Static Patterns. We all could start up a discussion on this, but for now I let this subject rest.   So, we do have here a conflict of interest, where you see Quality as a center stage and where you perceive Value as to what selection requires, I see neither. In memetic theory there is no talk about Quality, well a lot about Meaning_ all what is seen, hearded or is spoken of are consequences of interacting memes, what we experience as Reality/ Quality and Value are derived and referenced consequences, being end- products, of the interacting of memeplexes on a conscient level.   Of course, Quality of life is in that extend of great importance but no more than that compared to other terms. Memes are selfish remerber. If I call whatever of good or greater Quality it would be in the interst of the memes. Calling something of great Quality is just a way in which memes propagate themselves further. And no, selectio, requires not perceiving Value, in some sense yes, but the problem here is that you give memes than in some way forsight_ and memes, at least in common memetic theory have no forsight. If they do, they have to notice to what extend Value is for themselves.   Statements like  " memes want x " or " memes like y or z is a good meme- tic strategy "  is the wrong way of thinking. In a way memes are opportunistic. All the talking and thinking we all do is merely a consequence of what memes made us do in order to survive_in a sense talking and thinking are the  " good survivers ".   And to conclure this introduction, the intellectual level of Susan Blackmore is not quit limited in scope, but she and her followers are what we should call  " fundamantalists "_their focus point is the Meme- Eyes- View:- free will, political/ social/ cultural/ economical and/ or racial consequences of any giving behavior are related to the selfish nature of memes. The e(a)ffects of such a concept are overwhelming, nothing of Reality as we know it today rests in its place.   In the article which I would like to present to you all, I take the Meme- Eye- View one step further. My main interest is to determine the nature of the selfishness of memes. Possible consequences were already partly discussed in threads like Points of Memetic Saturation/ Gender- Bias for Memes and The Self- building Concept via Memes  which is not entirely closed yet. All these threads were discussed on the Memetic Discussion List of which I am member.   In order to have a discussion I will post my article  A Solipsistic View On Memetics upon this list. I hope to get any feedback from you all. For a better understanding of my position here, I do write, read and under- stand plain English, but some levels are quit hard to foloow. So, if I ever make mistakes or not quit answer the raised questions that is not due to any unwillingness on my part of the bargain, but due to the fact that I pro- bably did not understand quit well what you asked for. Excuse me for that...   Secondly, I am not an expert into memetics, although I am not quit a silly outsider either. What I write, state, postulate is not a general view in memetics. In that respect I can consider myself as an individualist, that is, I am well aware of the fact that memes strive because of me and propagate them- selves by the actions I make, but not all memesists follow that line of thinking.   What will follow is an article called             A Solipsistic View On Memetics   Due to its lenght I will poste it in 6 parts. For feedback, if you all want, wait untill I posted all the parts !? Tomorrow, Sunday I will be finished, I hope...   And if it seems necesarry to explain some memetic jargon where needed I compel myself to do so... Thanks you to all and especially to Jonathan B. Marder who helped me to set this up this link between the Discussion Lists.   Kenneth Van Oost For personal remarks, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]   I am, because we are...connected