Hi DMB, probably no space for the rigor you'd like, so if you can put up with the (well intentioned) drivel a little longer ...
Anyway. OK we agree on the core point. And yes, you are correct, selfish-memes can be used to mischaracterise social (and intellectual) evolution in exactly the same way as the survival (and expansion) of the selfish-gene has in evolution generally. (We agree we recognise the slippery slope to the many dangers.) For me the problem arises when mixing up an expalantion of a single mechanism (genetics or memetics) with some simplistic causal, determinist description of outcomes. Even with genes and memes, the processes of mutation, and preferential selection are many - there are whole books on each mechanism, and long-running academic debates. Every one of those myriad of possible mechanisms is happening amongst zillions of individuals, in zillions of situations across all the levels, all at once. Outcomes are complex, recursive and emergent .... Mental leap .... one possible model to which I subscribe, a metaphor, is that "we" are entirely memes, above the physiological - everything socio-intellectual is made of memes. (That's the Dennettian line you referred to already.) The reason therefore to take an interest in understanding memes - both what makes them good and what makes them successful - is to understand how it is possible to influence the direction of evolution of reason itself. (But in doing that, nothing could be further from my mind than a simple reductionist / atomist view of how things as complex and unpredictable - free-willed - as human psyche are "built from" memes, any more than I would suggest that understanding how three quarks interact, explains how humpback whales evolved their ability to navigate in groups on long migrations was "consructed" from quarks, even if they are.) Meme is just a word I use, loaded with possible misrepresented connotations, but a private language is just not possible, I use it and look out for the misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Ian On 5/17/07, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian said to dmb: > ...No brainer that it is seriously misguided stuff, leading to all manner of > evils. The problem that gives us, though, is the danger of that label and > no-brainer argument making (intellectually valid) evolutionary arguments > appears taboo in any social context. Sometimes, as you have chastised me > before, a little intellectual rigor and clarity is important ;-) > > dmb says: > If you're saying that social level evolution can be distinguished from the > doctrine of social darwinism, I'd agree. But I would challenge you to > re-examine your Dennettesque scientism especially as that sort of worldview > informs the notion of "memes". I mean, doesn't that idea apply that empty > and stupid motive of mere survival to meaning itself? Doesn't that idea > remain silent with respect to "any substantive excellence in WHAT survives"? > It's been a while since you praised the notion, but I think so. I mean, it > seems to me that you do not quite realize the extent to which you've > absorbed that cold and cruel version of darwinism. But you tell me. Go ahead > and give me "a little intellectual rigor and clarity" on this point. That > would be the very opposite of drivel... > > Hey, there's an idea. Let's say that on the fourth level, drivel leads to > (well justified) extinction. But seriously, the objection centers around a > very simple question. Why survive? Is it not meaningless to assert that mere > existence as the goal of existence? Doesn't the MOQ's idea of betterness as > the engine of evolution reduce survival to just one kind of betterness > whereas classic natural selection makes survival the whole point? I think > so. > > dmb > > "The entire modern deification of survival PER SE, survival returning to > itself, survival naked and abstract, with the denial of any substantive > excellence in WHAT survives, except the capacity for more survival still, is > surely the strangest intellecual stopping-place ever proposed by one man to > another." William James > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live > Hotmail. > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
