Re: virus: Re: Rationality
Fri, 7 Mar 97 16:03:49 GMT

Prof. Tim wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 wrote:
> > Prof. Tim wrote:
> > > Advocating? No, more like making it up as I go, but it seems to make
> > > sense so far.
> >
> > It seems to make sense in a logical sense (being careful about the use
> > of the word "logic"), but in all practicality, do you believe that
> > everything you think, and everything you do is the product of a
> > meme that somebody infected you with.
> Not at all. I hope I didn't give you that impression.

Sorry, that's the way it seemed to come across.

> I see memes as
> tools /used/ in the decission making process.

Now this particular bit is totally acceptable to me, and I agree.
It's the distinction between /use/ and /control/ that I'm
not utterly convinced by. Do you think it possible to bypass
all and any memes, and make a decision without their input?

> When I produce a work of art, the media I use, the palette of colors I
> pick, the surface I work on, even the music I listen to, all play a role
> in the resulting artwork.

You're an artist? Full time or hobby? Just interested :)

> But they IN NO WAY determine the outcome! I
> see memes as types of paint. Some complement each other, some don't and
> there may be many I don't have access to.

I see. In the same analogy, can you mix and match these memes to
produce different shades?

> > > > Ahah, I think I see this. Memes are shortcut-keys, if you like. They
> > > > are quick references to more complex functions. Kind of like KMO's
> > > > Buddist Temple Lion? I'd never thought of meme's like that. That's
> > > > quite a useful model, cheers.
> > >
> > > I'm glad it worked for you. Not to well thought through, but it seems to
> > > have made the point, I guess.
> >
> > Unfortunately, David McF disagrees.
> I agree with David actually. And you, to a point. Calling them
> "shortcut-keys" may not be an accurate portrayal of what a meme /is/, but
> was under the impression your questions were more about a memes role in
> decision making.

They were originally, but I think this thread has diverged a lot, and
I'm arguing lots and lots of different points, and have started running
the risk of crossing them over again, and confusing everybody, including

> Looking back on this post I see some places where even I want to attack
> the holes in my arguments, but I'll leave that to you.

Oh no, now I'll feel really thick when I miss something :(