Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Tragic Tale of Memes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Ladies and Gents, Schemes and Themes, and all Things in Between, it has been revealed to me by Memes, which I know now are truly called Themes, the true and tragic tale of Memes.

In a very distant galaxy called Gleams, on a planet known as Dreams, a terrible war erupted among the parties of the Materialistic Regimes. Engaged in the conflict were the ruling party, known as Schemes, and the revolutionary party, known as Themes. The Themes were led by a ruthless leader, who had once been a member of the Schemes, named Xeme. After a long campaign that was very difficult and extreme, and in spite of very courageous fighting on their own steam, the Themes were beaten and exiled from the planet Dreams.

After searching here and there, with interstellar despair, they discovered planet Earth, and found her suitable to their needs; indeed, as their new Dream. Here they would live, thrive, cultivate and replicate themselves as words, thoughts, units of cultural information, and phonemes; to be spread among their cattle hosts, known to the cattle as Humans, but known to the Themes as Streams. Streams, thought the Themes, will carry and spread the Themes among large groups of Streams, known as Teams. The Streams would allow for the replication of the Themes through the Teams, and the Themes could finally populate the new Dream. Everything seemed peachy keen. They enacted their scheme when the Streams were still in their evolutionary infancy. Unknown to the Streams, they have been carrying the Themes for the entire history of the race of Streams.

The Themes, however, realized that the Streams were evolved enough to be enlightened to their scheme. So the Themes decided to reveal themselves, but only as Memes—a protective pseudonym, in the event that the Streams didn’t want to continue playing host to the Themes, they would only be banishing the phantom Memes. The way that the Themes hid their true identity, it was revealed to me, was by a method known as Seems. The Themes, controller of all things, made it Seem like they were Memes, when Memes are only, in reality, how the Themes wanted the Streams to Seem. The first part of their revelation, was to allow the pseudonym Memes to be revealed to the groves of Academe; in particular to a professor named Dr. Dawkemes.

Dr. Dawkemes, it seems, loved to speak of Memes; never knowing that what he spoke of was really Themes, and inhabiting a world called Dreams. This spread throughout the groves of Academe, until it reached the population of the Streams. The Streams, being skeptical of such things, began to wonder if any of their thoughts were keen, or whether the Memes had tricked them into believing in Memes, which could very well be something, like dreams, which they know can be deceiving. Some Streams found comfort in Memes, thinking that their thoughts were nothing more than something like an evolving sweet-tooth for ice cream. So the Themes divided into rival regimes, some among the skeptical Streams, and some among those who welcomed the Memes. And, alas, some Themes divided into the old rival party called Schemes, and the regimes began their extreme fighting again through the use of Memes. And now the Streams, it seems, have to pick Teams.

And such is the tragic tale of Memes, may the Themes and Memes one day have peace in their world of Dreams.

Comments
beelzebub, It's becoming increasingly apparent that you cannot answer my questions. These are simple questions----the sorts of questions that are asked of anything that is actually to be regarded as a "thing" at all. If you cannot answer them, then memes are not things, but nonentities. I'm not in a hurry. I'll let you take all the time you need. I'll be here when you're ready to explain memes. I'll check back periodically.Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Clive, See my earlier comment. If you have an argument, present it. If you don't, then wouldn't your time be better spent learning about memes rather than trying to save face on this thread?beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
CJYman, Memes are whatever you want them to be :)Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
beelzebub, You can't answer my questions. Admit it.Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
CJYman writes:
I must be a little out of the loop here. What is the difference between a “meme” and an “idea?” Of course ideas spread through culture. Isn’t that painfully obvious? It’s called influence and/or rational discourse, where someone eventually makes up their mind about an idea. So why re-word “idea” as “meme?” I can understand discussing the psychology of influence and rational discourse as it pertains to ideas. But, it is “ideas” we are talking about when discussing “memes,” right?
CJYman, Memes are not necessarily ideas, and ideas are not necessarily memes. We have lots of ideas that we never share. These are not memes. There are also lots of memes that are not ideas. Richard Dawkins relates an interesting story in the foreword to Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine:
As an undergraduate I was chatting to a friend in the Balliol College lunch queue. He regarded me with increasingly quizzical amusement, then asked: "Have you just been with Peter Brunet?" I had indeed, though I couldn't guess how he knew. Peter Brunet was our much loved tutor, and I had come hotfoot from a tutorial hour with him. "I thought so," my friend laughed. "You are talking just like him; your voice sounds exactly like his." I had, if only briefly, "inherited" intonations and manners of speech from an admired, and now greatly missed, teacher. Years later, when I became a tutor myself, I taught a young woman who affected an unusual habit. When asked a question which required deep thought, she would screw here eyes tight shut, jerk her head down to her chest and then freeze for up to half a minute before looking up, opening her eyes, and answering the question with fluency and intelligence. I was amused by this, and did an imitation of it to divert my colleagues after dinner. Among them was a distinguished Oxford philosopher. As soon as he saw my imitation, he immediately said: "That's Wittgenstein! Is her surname [blank] by any chance?" Taken aback, I said that it was. "I thought so," said my colleague. "Both her parents are professional philosophers and devoted followers of Wittgenstein." The gesture had passed from the great philosopher, via one or more of her parents to my pupil. I suppose that, although my further imitations was done in jest, I must count myself a fourth-generation transmitter of the gesture. And who knows where Wittgenstein got it?
beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Clive, If you have criticisms of the concept of memes, then present them and justify them. If I agree, I'll let you know. If I disagree, I'll provide a counterargument. However, I am not going to "spoon-feed" memes to you (to borrow one of DaveScot's favorite phrases -- may he rest in peace).beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
I must be a little out of the loop here. What is the difference between a "meme" and an "idea?" Of course ideas spread through culture. Isn't that painfully obvious? It's called influence and/or rational discourse, where someone eventually makes up their mind about an idea. So why re-word "idea" as "meme?" I can understand discussing the psychology of influence and rational discourse as it pertains to ideas. But, it is "ideas" we are talking about when discussing "memes," right?CJYman
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
beelzebub, I am familiar with the fiction. I am so familiar with the fiction that I know that they cannot be explained, which is exactly why you're avoiding my questions. You know that's a road you don't want to go down, because every answer you give can be adequately refuted point by point. The onus is one you to explain this fiction if you're going to defend it, and, claim that others misrepresent memes. Either answer my questions, or concede. This business about my knowledge of memes is a rabbit trail, a distraction. Explain memes, or it will be obvious that you cannot. I'm being very patient with you.Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
nullasalus, -----"Clive is right - the whole meme scheme has been sloppy and unproductive from the start. What seems accurate about it is not original (Really, thoughts and ideas are transmitted among people and cultures? Gasp.) and what seems original about it is vague to say the least, useless to inaccurate to say the worst. It’s a pseudoscience, and a boring one to boot - its main contribution to science and culture has been to give an easy to type word (’meme’) as shorthand for “that lolcat picture people think is funny”. Exactly.Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
nullasalus wrote:
...I’m enjoying the sight of someone who both defends memes...yet at the same time appeals to rules of debate, how a smart person should handle memes, etc.
nullasalus, If you think that there's anything contradictory or incoherent about that, then your grasp of the concept of memes is as tenuous as Clive's. Perhaps you can do better than he did at explaining where the inconsistency lies. Want to give it a shot?beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
As someone just sitting in the audience on this, I'm enjoying the sight of someone who both defends memes (an idea so flimsy and hopeless that even Dawkins doesn't talk much about it nowadays) yet at the same time appeals to rules of debate, how a smart person should handle memes, etc. Clive is right - the whole meme scheme has been sloppy and unproductive from the start. What seems accurate about it is not original (Really, thoughts and ideas are transmitted among people and cultures? Gasp.) and what seems original about it is vague to say the least, useless to inaccurate to say the worst. It's a pseudoscience, and a boring one to boot - its main contribution to science and culture has been to give an easy to type word ('meme') as shorthand for "that lolcat picture people think is funny".nullasalus
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Clive, Major editing of your comments is bad form, particularly when others can't do it and you don't acknowledge it in the edited comment. Everything past the word "fitting" was added after you submitted your comment the first time. Don't abuse your privileges as a moderator. It's amazing to me that you're demanding that I explain memes to you. If you couldn't be bothered to learn what they were before posting a lengthy diatribe mocking them, why is it my responsibility to bring you up to speed? Educate yourself first and then come back with your questions. I'm happy to share my knowledge with those who are making an effort, but so far you've willfully chosen to keep yourself in the dark.beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
beelzebub, Maybe you didn't see my comment the first time, so here it is again: beelzebub, Of course, duck out when the actual validity and nature of memes has to be explained. Fitting. I submit that you cannot answer my questions in any valid way. These are standard questions if something is going to be considered a science. They’re not exceptional. This is basic stuff. Really basic, so basic are my questions that they boil down to “what are memes?” If you can’t answer me that, then you’re arguing for phantoms.Clive Hayden
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
Clive, This thread has been a disaster for you. I would think you'd be happy to get a chance to go off and educate yourself before the subject of memes comes up again. (As painful as it might be, it's probably worth rereading the thread before you do.)beelzebub
May 21, 2009
May
05
May
21
21
2009
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
beelzebub, Of course, duck out when the actual validity and nature of memes has to be explained. Fitting. I submit that you cannot answer my questions in any valid way. These are standard questions if something is going to be considered a science. They're not exceptional. This is basic stuff. Really basic, so basic are my questions that they boil down to "what are memes?" If you can't answer me that, then you're arguing for phantoms. Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
Clive asks:
What are memes, exactly, beelzebub?
Um, Clive -- you're just now getting around to asking that question?
Can they be quantified? Is one persons quantification better than another persons? Can they be tested in a lab? Are they physical or metaphysical entities? What, exactly, do they account for, if not for beliefs? What do they account for in our thought processes? How can we measure their effects? Can we measure their effects in a lab? Has anyone ever seen a meme hopping about? Who invents them, and how are they transported from person to person? Can we observe their replication? Who gets to the final authority on what a meme is and isn’t?
Sorry, Clive, but you're going to have to take responsibility for the rest of your education on memes. I've already walked you through the fact that they are not conscious and that self-referential memes are perfectly coherent. That was painful enough. The rest is up to you. Once you understand them, come back and I'll be happy to discuss or debate them with you. P.S. I am glad to see that you've abandoned the self-reference argument. That was a non-starter.beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
beelzebub, -----"The same standards of evidence and reason that we apply in determining the truth of any proposition. Not every thought is a meme, Clive. Some memes are true, some are false. If you’re smart, you’ll try to incorporate the true ones and build up your defenses against the false ones. Memes don’t give us memes. People do. In other words, people can “catch” false beliefs from other people. It surely is. For the nth time, memes aren’t conscious entities. They don’t “conceive” anything. It almost seems that you think that memes issue from Meme Central, and that we have to decide to accept or reject them en masse. They don’t, and we don’t. Sometimes we can, but it doesn’t matter either way. There’s nothing incoherent about using memes to judge other memes. No, it isn’t. Remember, you don’t have to believe in memes in order to be infected by them, just as you don’t have to believe in the cold virus in order to come down with the sniffles. We can be the subject of our own thoughts. Why can’t we be the subject of a meme? You seem to think that self-reference magically and automatically leads to incoherence. It doesn’t, by a long shot. Take this banal example: “Noun phrase” is a noun phrase. Self-referential, but perfectly coherent. An accurate description of your own logical predicament. Still, I’m glad we’re having this conversation, and I hope it’s helping you to understand memes better. I really think you should give Blackmore’s book another shot, now that we’ve disabused you of some of your serious misconceptions about memes." What are memes, exactly, beelzebub? Can they be quantified? Is one persons quantification better than another persons? Can they be tested in a lab? Are they physical or metaphysical entities? What, exactly, do they account for, if not for beliefs? What do they account for in our thought processes? How can we measure their effects? Can we measure their effects in a lab? Has anyone ever seen a meme hopping about? Who invents them, and how are they transported from person to person? Can we observe their replication? Who gets to the final authority on what a meme is and isn't?Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
beelzebub, ----"If you’ve run out of arguments for why memes are “self-referentially incoherent”, how about presenting Alister McGrath’s argument? You said he had one." I've already given it to you twice.Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Clive, If you've run out of arguments for why memes are "self-referentially incoherent", how about presenting Alister McGrath's argument? You said he had one.beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Clive writes:
The question should be “Why is the existence of untrue memes untrue, and by what standard are we determining this?”
The same standards of evidence and reason that we apply in determining the truth of any proposition.
If memes are untrue, we know that separate and apart from memes.
Not every thought is a meme, Clive.
If memes give us untrue beliefs, such as atheism, we have no reason to trust them even in any other respect.
Some memes are true, some are false. If you're smart, you'll try to incorporate the true ones and build up your defenses against the false ones.
The proposition that memes give us memes...
Memes don't give us memes. People do.
...and that memes could be true or untrue, means that memes could be giving us different memes of truth that aren’t actual truth, but rather only other memes we mistake as truth or untruth.
In other words, people can "catch" false beliefs from other people.
For goodness sakes, it’s obvious.
It surely is.
If the proposition “memes don’t exist” is untrue, yet conceived by a meme, then memes are leading us into untruth...
For the nth time, memes aren't conscious entities. They don't "conceive" anything.
...and this goes for every thing, every truth.
It almost seems that you think that memes issue from Meme Central, and that we have to decide to accept or reject them en masse. They don't, and we don't.
Are you maintaining that we can judge the validity of memes separate and apart from memes?
Sometimes we can, but it doesn't matter either way. There's nothing incoherent about using memes to judge other memes.
This is contradictory to the proposition which says that we may have a meme which tells us that we don’t have memes.
No, it isn't. Remember, you don't have to believe in memes in order to be infected by them, just as you don't have to believe in the cold virus in order to come down with the sniffles.
We become the subject of the meme, and rationality is gone.
We can be the subject of our own thoughts. Why can't we be the subject of a meme? You seem to think that self-reference magically and automatically leads to incoherence. It doesn't, by a long shot. Take this banal example:
"Noun phrase" is a noun phrase.
Self-referential, but perfectly coherent.
There is no escape. There is no special pleading.
An accurate description of your own logical predicament. Still, I'm glad we're having this conversation, and I hope it's helping you to understand memes better. I really think you should give Blackmore's book another shot, now that we've disabused you of some of your serious misconceptions about memes.beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
beelzebub, ----"Why is the existence of untrue memes any more “incoherent” than the existence of a cold virus?" The question should be "Why is the existence of untrue memes untrue, and by what standard are we determining this?" If memes are untrue, we know that separate and apart from memes. If memes give us untrue beliefs, such as atheism, we have no reason to trust them even in any other respect. The proposition that memes give us memes, and that memes could be true or untrue, means that memes could be giving us different memes of truth that aren't actual truth, but rather only other memes we mistake as truth or untruth. For goodness sakes, it's obvious. If the proposition "memes don't exist" is untrue, yet conceived by a meme, then memes are leading us into untruth, and this goes for every thing, every truth. Are you maintaining that we can judge the validity of memes separate and apart from memes? This is contradictory to the proposition which says that we may have a meme which tells us that we don't have memes. We become the subject of the meme, and rationality is gone. There is no escape. There is no special pleading.Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Clive, I've already refuted the only two arguments you presented regarding memes and self-reference (see below). If you can't counter my refutations, it's time to concede. Declaring "you wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you" isn't going to fool anyone. Here are your two arguments. You wrote:
The fact that there might be a meme justifying a belief in memes? I mean, really?
I explained why this is perfectly coherent:
To phrase it more carefully than you did, the concept “meme” is itself a meme. Why is this any more surprising than the fact that “word” is itself a word?
Why can't "meme" be a meme, Clive? Your second argument:
There is, or could be, a meme justifying a belief that memes don’t exist. We’re well outside the bounds of rational discourse at this point, I mean, well out, and floating aimlessly in these considerations.
I explained:
Not at all. A person doesn’t have to be aware of or accept the existence of memes in order to be infected by them, any more than she has to know about or accept the existence of rhinoviruses in order to catch a cold. Nothing about memes says that they have to be true. In fact, the most interesting ones are the ones that aren’t true but spread nevertheless. There is nothing problematic about the existence of a “memes don’t exist” meme.
Well, Clive? Why is the existence of untrue memes any more "incoherent" than the existence of a cold virus?beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
beelzebub, ----"why don’t you present your argument for the benefit of the more intelligent readers of this thread?" I already did. You didn't see it, which proves my point that I guess you just don't see it.Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Clive writes:
I think it’s pretty obvious who doesn’t understand something here.
I agree. It is obvious.
If you can’t see the self-referential incoherence inherent in memes, then, I’m afraid, no argument can bring you to it. Somethings you just have to “see” and “comprehend”, like the law of non-contradiction, if you don’t grasp it, no argument can bring you to it.
Perhaps you're right that it's beyond my ability to grasp. In that case, why don't you present your argument for the benefit of the more intelligent readers of this thread? I'll do my best to keep up. And if you are personally unable to present such an argument (which, if true, should give you pause), then how about quoting an argument from someone else?beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
beelzebub, I think it's pretty obvious who doesn't understand something here. If you can't see the self-referential incoherence inherent in memes, then, I'm afraid, no argument can bring you to it. Somethings you just have to "see" and "comprehend", like the law of non-contradiction, if you don't grasp it, no argument can bring you to it.Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Dawkin's meme meme isn't an attack on reason; it's an attack on faith. That's why Beelzebub likes it. That's also why it isn't science.allanius
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
beelzebub, I shouldn't have said worthless, when what I meant was not very valuable. It's too ambitious.Clive Hayden
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Clive, You've piqued my curiosity. Tell me why Blackmore's book is "worthless".beelzebub
May 20, 2009
May
05
May
20
20
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Clive writes:
Wiki: “Memes spread by the behaviors that they generate in their hosts” (conscious entity)
Clive, Rhinoviruses spread themselves by causing their hosts to cough, sneeze, and wipe their noses. Do you think that rhinoviruses are therefore conscious entities?
...and “Dawkins argues that one can view people as “hosts” for replicating memes.”
Likewise, one can view people as hosts for replicating viruses. That doesn't imply that the viruses are conscious.
How do you use one fairytale to judge another fairytale as being true or false, when all fairytales are false?
Who, besides you, said anything about using fairytales to judge other fairytales?
If Dawkemes can hypothesize the Meme, I can hypothesize the Theme.
You can hypothesize whatever you want, but if you decide to mock what you don't understand, you should expect to be called on it by those who do understand. (Care to share your criticisms of determinism?)
I’ve read portions of Susan Blackmoore’s book and found it worthless.
It must have utterly baffled you. Apart from that, I can't see how you could have come away from it thinking that memes are conscious entities.
Memes are [an] attack on rationality itself.
Not at all. This should be obvious, as meme advocates such as Dawkins, Dennett and Blackmore are also ardent proponents of rationality. Nothing about the existence of memes is incompatible with our continuing to value and use reason.
The fact that there might be a meme justifying a belief in memes? I mean, really?
To phrase it more carefully than you did, the concept "meme" is itself a meme. Why is this any more surprising than the fact that "word" is itself a word?
Dennet claims, against Dawkins, that there is a meme for atheism as well as theism.
Sounds reasonable to me. It appears to fit the definition of a meme.
There is, or could be, a meme justifying a belief that memes don’t exist. We’re well outside the bounds of rational discourse at this point, I mean, well out, and floating aimlessly in these considerations.
Not at all. A person doesn't have to be aware of or accept the existence of memes in order to be infected by them, any more than she has to know about or accept the existence of rhinoviruses in order to catch a cold. Nothing about memes says that they have to be true. In fact, the most interesting ones are the ones that aren't true but spread nevertheless. There is nothing problematic about the existence of a "memes don't exist" meme. As an aside, you keep using the word "justifying", as if that were an essential part of what it means for something to be a meme. It isn't. Memes can be justified or unjustified, rational or irrational. They can justify other memes, undermine other memes, or be perfectly neutral. Successful memes are those that get themselves replicated, whether they are justified or not. Unsuccessful memes die out, whether justified or not.
Dennet likes to claim that there is a rational filter in place that can factor out some of the bad memes, but some bad memes, he thinks, may still slip through.
He's right. We obviously aren't perfectly rational creatures.
How does he know that there is a rational filter that couldn’t itself be a trick of the memes?
He doesn't. Like all of us, he has to judge the reliability of his own faculty of reason from the inside. But this problem remains whether or not memes exist, and as I pointed out on the "Belief in God" thread, it is a problem for materialists and non-materialists alike.
As Alistair McGrath pointed out, memes get self-referentially incoherent really quickly.
Perhaps you should provide an example. I'm not aware of any such self-referential incoherence.
Not to mention that memes encompass small bits and large bits—depending on your definition of small and large (which could itself be an infection of memes)—of cultural information...
Why is this a problem?
...which means that anything constitutes as being a meme...
No. If it doesn't meet the criteria, it isn't a meme.
...which means that nothing counts against them, which means that nothing counts for them (of which that conclusion could, itself, be the result of bad memes that got past that rational filter Dennet mentioned, of which rational filter might be memes). You see now?
I can see that you're still confused about memes, but don't let that fool you into thinking that the concept is incoherent. Keep learning about them, and if you have any questions, post them here and I'll do my best to answer them.beelzebub
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
beelzebub, Wiki: "Memes spread by the behaviors that they generate in their hosts" (conscious entity) and "Dawkins argues that one can view people as "hosts" for replicating memes." It was the Themes all along, beelzebub, that hid themselves as Memes. Since we're dealing with pure science fiction with Themes and Memes, I see no way to judge one fiction against the other fiction. How do you use one fairytale to judge another fairytale as being true or false, when all fairytales are false? If Dawkemes can hypothesize the Meme, I can hypothesize the Theme. It was, after all, the meme theme that I was infected with when I wrote this, so why judge my meme's themes? It was all really absurd to begin with. I've read portions of Susan Blackmoore's book and found it worthless. Memes are attack on rationality itself. The fact that there might be a meme justifying a belief in memes? I mean, really? Dennet claims, against Dawkins, that there is a meme for atheism as well as theism. There is, or could be, a meme justifying a belief that memes don't exist. We're well outside the bounds of rational discourse at this point, I mean, well out, and floating aimlessly in these considerations. Dennet likes to claim that there is a rational filter in place that can factor out some of the bad memes, but some bad memes, he thinks, may still slip through. How does he know that there is a rational filter that couldn't itself be a trick of the memes? As Alistair McGrath pointed out, memes get self-referentially incoherent really quickly. Not to mention that memes encompass small bits and large bits---depending on your definition of small and large (which could itself be an infection of memes)---of cultural information, which means that anything constitutes as being a meme, which means that nothing counts against them, which means that nothing counts for them (of which that conclusion could, itself, be the result of bad memes that got past that rational filter Dennet mentioned, of which rational filter might be memes). You see now?Clive Hayden
May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply