Re: virus: Memetics: our obligations

Brett Lane Robertson (
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:49:35 -0500

Eric Boyd said: Yikes. I think you'll find what I have to say here
somewhat compatable with what you said, and decidely different. (In response
to B. Robertson)

Yes! Our positions are very compatable and very different.

Giving your view considerable thought I concede that there is an
evolutionary benefit to replicating one's imperfection; for it is our
mistakes which make us individuals and the continuation of the individual
seems as important (or more important) than the continuation of the species.
As my life history is uniquely my own; it would also seem that variations on
a theme might be the best I could hope for anyway.

"Beauty" is also an ideal. Your position reminds me of my own work toward
defining beauty which includes not only ideal beauty but also common beauty,
the grotesque, and the "idea" of beauty. The idea of beauty I see as that
which remains constant from the beginning. My evolutionary law: That which
remains constant will remain. It may not fit the criteria of "fittest", but
it is "beautiful".

I have keyed in to the idea of memes to explain how this prime cause is
replicated because Darwinistic theory addresses that which changes. Still,
Darwinism also fails to account for the survival of the unique
individual--in all his glorious imperfection. Meme theory should be
comprehensive and should apply to the various forms of matter/mind not taken
into account by survival of the fittest. I accept your position. I agree
that memes ALSO replicate individual variation.

I wonder though, as to the survival of individual memes, whether a perfect
meme or an imperfect meme has greater chance of replicating. I also worry
that the replication of imperfection might lead one to force, violence, and
the deliberate propigation of lies. Again, I sense that brute force alone
might be evolutionary mechanism enough to guarentee the survival of an
individual's weaknesses.


Not Spell-Checked,
A Blob Nest Net Terror