Re: virus: Angelica de Meme

Tony Hindle (
Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:25:18 +0100

In message <>, Tadeusz Niwinski
<> writes
>Here is my position on VotM:
> We are witnessing an information and intellectual revolution. This
>book is "dynamite", which can be used for the good of humanity, or only for
>"us"... Who is going to use this knowledge and how? We are publishing
>this book with a clear conscience, as we believe that knowledge should be
>widely available, and not hidden as in ancient Egypt. Today's slaves are
>slaves by choice. Those who choose not to read this book have only
>themselves to blame.
Thank you for your posting. It helps me see your position more
>>I dont believe you are jealous and yet you
>>frequently post warnings of his manipulative motives, thus setting up
>>cognitive dissonance in me.
>Thank you, I am glad I do. Which postings do you have in mind? I'll be
>glad to discuss something specific.
The ones where you say
"Richard is just a manipulative cunt who doesnt believe anything
is real, he should be injected with special drugs to keep him alive so
he can feel all the pain while his internal organs are removed and used
for the benefit of others."
...I am paraphrasing and sumarising what I have got from a
hundred or so postings. (this one has corrected my perceptions.)
>>I want to give you a chance to program me
>>with something different to the "you are jealous" meme in order to
>>reduce this cognitive dissonance. I want something better than this meme
>>otherwise I know that I will find myself dismissing all your attacks on
>>Richard as Jealousy driven.
>Richard calls it "when are you going to stop beating your wife" technique.
So you and Richard together serve to elicit more and deeper
thinking about his book, is that what you mean?
>>>>May I remind you I am ready to run naked through buckinghham palace
>>>>screaming "I must eat the queen's pussy, Take control, learn memetics"
It was a joke. What I thought was a more amusing way of saying
that I am ready to spread memetics to others.
>Btw: as far as I understand, your way of joking
>about the Queen is a criminal offense in Great Britain (I am her Canadian
>subject and I am not sure if I take part in this crime right now :-)).
The queen is the puppet head of an bunch of inbread halfwits.
I reckon Micheal Fagin (palace intruder 10yrs ago, media reported he
entered the queen's bedroom and "chatted to her for two hours") actually
fucked the queen senseless. What is more she liked it and has been
ordering young mute men (and certain varieties of farmyard animals) to
the palace for secret sex sessions ever since. When are we going to hear
the truth?
"Fagin fucked the queen, Mikey was up her maj's vag."
>About memetics. It occurred to me just recently that memetics is like
>astrology. We know that the position of the stars when we are born is
>different for different people and it may explain differences between us.
>Nobody did any research on HOW it may influence us, although astrologers
>claim they know.
I dont follow. Surely you are not saying you believe in
>We know memes or ideas or concepts exist and are transmitted in some ways
>from one person to another. Can we claim that because of this knowledge we
>know how to live?
I think I know how to live. Personal hapiness maximization.
> It's good to know the techniques of manipulation and
>*how* ideas influence people, but it does not answer any of the
>philosophical and psychological questions.
Are you familiar with Dennett's suggestions in Darwin's
Dangerous Idea regarding how memes and consciousness may have co-evolved
and continue to do so and thus extend our consciousness higher into
design space? This aproach suggests many answers to psychological and
philosophical questions to me.

> A notion that you know
>how to live because you know how to program peoples' minds seems to be
>highly immoral to me.
I agree. Im not sure where you suggest this notion comes from.
Perhaps the notion that you know how to live because you know how others
try to program your mind makes more sense and is morally neutral.
>My favourite example of an excellent product which is not marketed well
>enough is the theory of six pillars of self-esteem by Dr. Nathaniel Branden.
>If it could be wrapped in a "new science" package... Nathaniel Branden's
>books answer many questions about how to live a better life. An excellent
>tool to consciously program your "memecology" although the word meme does
>not appear there once. Not to mention the meme-space-flexing-on-the-fly
>post-rational concept.
Intriguing. This makes me reflect on something I think about
Richard's book. He has sensibly distributed his efforts between content
and packaging. I will read Branden's book if ever I come across it.

Tony Hindle.
I see objective reality as the omnipresent radio station,
to which all creatures of the cosmos can Tune into, so we have
something in common that we can talk to one another about when we meet.
...The Reverend C. Darwin.