virus: Re: virus-digest V1 #121

Matthew Purdon (
Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:58:40 -0600

Two things today.

First) In regard to XYZ:

I've only been reading this list for three days and it is quite apparant
that the phenomenon of XYZ is a rather new anomly to what I hope is
normally more reasonable discourse.

Hasn't anyone taken the time to examine the processes of XYZ's own memetic
functions. A virus needs a host to live on and XYZ needs your respectable
and ordered e-mail list out of which to wreck havoc. Chaos doesn't just
want to be chaos, it wants to break down order into Chaos By staying in
communication with XYZ, you all are providing XYZ with host minds to
scramble up. Why are you complaining about having to read his drible
everymorning? After having read a significant amount already, I have now
stopped reading any posts back and forth between XYZ. By not putting
yourselves in contact with XYZ, your minds won't be available for him to
fuck with. If everyone did that, XYZ would go and seek out a more
hospitable climate in which to operate. Of course, he would first continue
to harass our blank wall for a long time. The real test is whether or not
all the rest of us would agree to this memetic diagnosis and strategy and
have the strength not to look at his tauntings or else we'd share the fate
of Lot's wife. It's too easy for XYZ to play the antagonizing skeptic and
for you all to become a persuavise rationalist. Take the wiser path.


John P. Schneider said:

>The whole reason for this diatribe just now, is because I just want
>to say that we need to separate religion and sex and everything from
>memetics so we view it in it's unadulterated state. There is nothing
>wrong with metaphysics or speculation because humans have a need to
>do such "nonsense" things. BUT, we have to separate the subjectively
>involved observer from the observation or we will never be able to
>make progress in the "science" of will forever remain a
>fad then. We have to distance ourselves from the thing that controls
>us or it will continue to shape our thoughts in such a way that we
>will never be able to "get a handle" on them. They will be like smoke
>and mirrors.

I agree with John's desire, but I don't think that memetics will become
any sort of science until a lot more is discovered about how the human
consciousness operates. Highly evolved brain tools that can map and trace
the flow of memes in the mind won't be developed for a long time. Any
attempts beforehand will end up being a soft science, like "social science".
So intill the tools exist to create the monological gaze on memes, we will
not be able to separate sex and religion and memes. However, once we have,
the real trick will be to reintegrate them. The beauty of smoke and mirrors
is that when you first see them, you are amazed. When you figure out
how they work for the disappearance trick, you are again amazed. When you
see the magic trick the second time, you are still in awe of the smoke and
mirrors because your understanding doesn't explain the encounter with them.
Everystep in conscious evolution happends when the former subjective self and
objective self combine to becomes the object of the newer subjective self. Are
end isn't ultimate objectivity, but ultimate subjectivity. And it is this
end that brings about the need for metaphysical inquiry which is not "nonsense".
Anyone who says anything is "nonsense" is under the fallacy of judgement.
The beauty of science is that it will never ultimately fall to human
It is truth through experiential observation. And it is wisdom, which is
also beyond
judgement, that is the metaphysical understanding of the universe that runs
parrallel to science.

I will be off line for the next few days and look forward to reading your
when I return.