Re: virus: Jesus as a Memetic Engineer

Eric Boyd (
Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:42:10 -0500

Reed Konsler wrote:

> One thing I'd like to point out is that <Jesus> and Jesus, the "real"
> person to whom a lot of Christianity is attributed are two different
> things, ontologically.
> <snip>
> Proper names are used for things which are too complex to be
> completely categorized and generalized...things of uniqueness
> or unique value.

Like "Eric".

Heck, like most every word. "Chair" is as good an example as any.

> <snip>
> Considering how many people interpret the Bible as a fundamental
> and literal truth--a Rock of Ages, if you will--it is important to
> keep track of the difference between: Jesus, the person who may
> or may not have lived and taught about 2000 years ago and
> <Jesus> The Memetic Construct.

OK, I'm guilty of this ambiguity. I did make a half hearted distinction
between "Jesus" and "his Church" but that doesn't go far enough...
thanks for the valuable distinction meme! (BTW, thanks go to Eva too)

> Why is this so important? Well, consider <Jesus> as text...
> <Jesus> is a text.
> All texts have and author
> Thus <Jesus>, by it's very existence, implies an author
> This Implied Author shall be named ___?___.

"God" ??? ("...the inspired Word of God...")

That would be the "fundamentalist" answer. I tend to think this is
where the "Implied Author" argument from design breaks down. No one
person is responsible for the current intrepretation*S* of the Bible.
They have been memetically evolving for *thousands* of years.