|
Part 3
Descartes held, in the concept ' I think therefor I
am ' a solitairy consciousness
which can be assured of its own existence
exclusively as " one " conscious
mind. This view is simple to
understand.
In Descartes' view, God bridged the gap between me
and the world of other
humanoid objects, giving me the innate knowledge
assuming the existence of
an outside world.
That too is simple to understand, but it cannot be the bias where upon I can place a theory like memetics.
It would be too simple supposing that f. e God has giving me the urge to investigate Richard Dawkins ' famous words.
" I " know for sure I did subscribe myself to this list in order to access know- ledge about the subject. And in the view of the
matter, I am the only mind known
to myself to exist, how is it possible that I can
talk to you all !?
How is it possible that you all are part of my joy
and my sarrow, of my sense
of personality and identity !?
Such a simple conclusion is nimical to this
solipsistic view. There can be
neither collectiviness or sameness nor a concept
individual, because on the
one hand the thoughts, effects of behaviour,
emotions, desires, humour,
love and ambition are anyhow known to me as the
only consciousness
known to me to exists and on the other hand the
basic concept of an individual implies more than one direct involved subject,
what accordingly the tenet of
solipsism is not recognized at all.
But that in a sense can be a memeplex, a chemical
process...in my brain.
If this is so, everything ends here. Thus it
follows, in that case, that I too
don ' t exist, but I would be in some sense the
only thing ' alive ' in order
to notice that and to think memetically about
it.
Such property would then give rise to the
supposition that we are some part
of some kind of collective mind_in the sense that
then each other individual
has an unique and priveleged access to the part of
that collective mind which
he/ she calls then his/ hers own mind.
This view makes it clear that there is no
collectiviness, not even Behind the
Difference ( Idit Chris Lofting ) because 1. we all
have priveleged psycholo-
gical concepts/ memeplexes which are denied to
everyone else and 2. this
kind of thinking don 't allow the unique, but
illusive existence of another in-
dividual anyhow.
We are truly, each one of us, i n d i v i d u a l s
..
The notion that there can be a collective mind can
't be prooven neither as
Behind/ Sameness nor as Behind/ Difference. That
is, because in this view
each pattern of thought/ each meme and each
memeplex is fundamental
solipsistic in its development_it starts up from
its own case and in its essentials
we can 't know if such a thing like a memeplex have
its genesis in the
Sameness or the in Difference.
According to the philosophical content of this
article and due to the philo-
sophy of solipsism_each memeplex (including that of
the Self which I expe-
rience as the Me tlling this) have created ex-
hypothesi, from its own case
its own little piece of notion of the world and
then stuck it ' out there ' as something
real and apart from itself ( I am for all I
know its host to do so) all the while denying that it have done so. ( Idit Looking Award)
Nothing is simply ' there ' , it has to be
constructed inside the brain. Our
brain takes photographs of each aspect/ of each
argument/ of each image/
takes notion of each meme/ every sent/ every signal
and processes it into
one ' moving ' vision of the outside
world. What the brain does is building up
time after time layer after layer of the us
surrounding world in order to shape
a then understaneble picture of what is really out
there in order to create a
world for itsef.
That is, our brain invents, creates, ignores and
distorts whatever it comes
across. This ' moving aspect ' , this '
weaving ' ability of the brain is in
result what we experience as the reality out
there.
We can 't comprehend all what is happening around
us, our eyes take up
fractions of that info, send it to the brain where
the brain processes the info
along existing pathways of recognition into images
which are then immedia-
tely or at a future time projected back in the
outside world.
In that way, we don 't have to see ( our brain saves energy) it all, our brain ' guesses ' what is out there along subways of
recognition; what it remerbers
of previous times and of past
experiences.
What is ' really ' out there is highly a projection
of our personal innerworld.
(Some part, idit Brain Story, by Susan
Greenfield)
Thus " I " am in that respect therby only something
fleshy and conscient,
as I were their host, where
through solipsistic patterns propagate
themselves_and that is analogous to what we know of the nature of memes.
End of part Three
|
