Re: Re:virus: Is objectivism a meme?

David McFadzean (
Sat, 1 Mar 1997 10:27:46 -0700

> From: David Rosdeitcher <>
> Date: Saturday, March 01, 1997 8:45 AM
> Ok, get ready to hear this:
> When I read Tony's posts, I get the impression that he is taking an
> objective approach to memetics, by claiming that how well memes do in terms of
> propagating themselves is affected by how well they correspond with objective
> reality.

Science has been very successful by that criterion. But if that was the only
criterion than you would have to assume that other very successful meme-
complexes like Christianity and Hinduism also correspond to objective reality.
I don't think so.

> Richard is taking a position that memes do not correspond with objective
> reality--as if memes have a life of their own independent of objective

Wrong again.

> Richard wrote to Drakir:
> >A fact is nothing more than a meme with universal agreement. That
> >agreement can come and go over time! Fact is just a label we put on a
> >meme, like USDA approval of a side of beef.

This statement does not imply that memes are independent of objective reality
because statements can't reach the status of universal agreement independent
of objective reality (even if they are completely inaccurate!). Personally I
would have dropped the "nothing more than".

> This is confusing, because truth does in fact, change--but changes according
> what is observed. What Richard is saying is that you can make up your own
> about reality and they'd be just as valid as any other facts. This, of course,

Why are you constantly and repeatedly misrepresenting Richard's position?
Are you running out of things to attack? Is attacking more important to you
than discussion?

> Tony wrote:
> >Reality is an illusion created by our senses.
> No! Even though you perceive reality differently than others, it is still the
> same reality that others perceive. Such a loose end in thinking opens up a
> for Richard, as "another one bites the dust".

Which reality do you think Tony was talking about? Objective reality or
subjective reality? Obviously subjective. Again you would rather disagree
than understand.

> David McF wrote:
> > It appears that you and Tad are picking fights just for the
> >sake of picking fights. Is it any wonder why most subscribers are trying to
> >ignore this discussion?
> What David McF is doing here is implying, by his emphasis on the "value" of
> opinion, is that the energy other people put into a discussion determines
> reality. In other words, content of consciousness determines existence.

No. I was implying that your confrontational style is tiresome. Nothing more.

> I will not go further into this but I will tell you that Richard Brodie
> David McFadzean are tricking people in ways that have been used to trick
> millions of people for 2300 years. Corey asked a question once, about whether
> Tad and I are saying Richard is evil. Yes! Richard B. and David McF are
> assholes!

Is that any way to treat your gracious host (me). I am very serious. Would
you say that in my house?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus