Hi Ian/DMB Above and beyond survival I would add abundance and variety and flourishing, as long as you are around to live (i.e. survive) you are free to indulge, excel, create and excess!
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ian glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism > 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/ > 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/
