Hi Kenneth
You said:
> Great idea ! But you are right, memetics in general lacks a
> metaphysical foundation. In all honesty, I think it can be done ! We "
> re- write " the nature of humankind within a meme- concept. How does
> that sound to you !? One of the ideas I have now for a long time, is
> just that... Therefor projects like human selection, eugnenetics, etc
> are of interest to me, also " new " ideas like those proposed by
> Sloterdijk/ Rietdijk will open up new horizons...
Er.....the nature of humankind within a meme-concept?! Isn't that
what Dawkins has done? I hope you have some quality-memetic
harmonization in mind? If so I too believe that it can be done and
there are no "buts" except that such an untertaking is somehow
too much for me who at 66 experience the first signs of limited
energy.
I don't know the said Sloterdijk and Rietdijk (can you give me a
summary?) but it all points to an increasing number of ideas that -
as said - flies in the face of the subject-object metaphysics.
Something is in the air - has been for a while now.
I see that Jonathan rejects the Memetics for "solipsistic" reason,
but this is no great objection because that is a quasi-SOM-view of
things. If Memetics is enlarged to comprize the quality opening
move (as well as the Inorganic stage) it's on solid graound.
Naturally I had to say that there was many solipsism "droppings"
at the Q lists (in a derisive tone) because many don't understand
the enormity of the SOM/MOQ shift and goes on to believe that
terms like "solipsism" retain any meaning in the quality-universe.
But will such a revised memetics be memetical afterwards, and will
Dawkins agree? All right, if you feel for writing some outline I am
eager to have a look at it.
Good luck
Bo
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
