Re: virus: MAIDS

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:13:53 -0700

Tim wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>> Tim (Professorski) wrote:
>> >Tadeusz (Rand-y) Niwinski wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can we control memes we process and can we prove it (one way or the
>> >> other)? I think it's time to formulate our axioms. Let me start with
>> >> some three axioms (three because I want to become the Ayn Rand of
>> >> Memetics):=20
>> >>=20
>> >> (1) Memes exist.
>> >> (2) Memes control what we do.
>> >> (3) We are capable of selecting memes we let control what we do.
>> >
>> >I think these axioms may be a good starting point. But I think we need=
>> >expand our understanding of "we are capable of selecting memes" in order
>> >to understand its relationship with "memes control what we do".
>> Sure go ahead. What do you think?
>Glad you asked, Tad.
>I think that the memes that "control what we do" are a subset of the memes
>we have stored internally (been exposed to and retained) and that that is,
>in turn, a subset of the memes we have been exposed to in our environment.
>Let's introduce some sets then: (Buckle up your seatbelts for some set
>theory boys and girls)
> E{m} is the set that contains all memes the individual (here shown
>as "m") is exposed to.
> I{m} is the set that contains all memes "m" retains and stores
>internally. (I use "internally" instead of "in memory" to leave the door
>open to other forms on storage such as notes or books)
> A{m} is the set that contains all memes in "m" that "control what
>we do" or are active in m's personal mindset.
>I assert that,
> E{m} > I{m} > A{m}
>And that there in criteria (or set of criterion) whereby memes are
>selected from E{m} to become a part of I{m}. And likewise a similar, but
>my no means equivalent, set of criteria that selects from the set I{m} to
>generate A{m}. I think these criterion=7F are at the heart of the matter.
>I have arbitrary named these criteria, without attributing
>characteristics to them yet, in order to look at their relationships. I
>have named them:
> R(x) is the criteria whereby I{m} is selected from E{m} for any
>meme "x" within E{m}.
> V(x) is the criteria whereby A{m} is selected from I{m} for any
>meme "x" within I{m}.
>Therefore a meme, say <God>, may move from E{m} to I{m} and further be
>selected into A{m} for one individual, but not for another if their R(x)
>and V(x) criteria are different.
>I think the interesting memes are the ones that once they reach A{m}
>reconfigure R(x) and V(x) to new values. These are the ones that can be
>said to control the /way/ we think.
>And I believe some peoples R(x) and V(x) are such that primary among the
>criteria (still undefined at this point) are the judgment of the perceived
>effects of a meme upon that criteria. Such that said individual would
>give high R(x) and V(x) values to memes that show the potential to
>reconfigure the formulas for R(x) and V(x) in a useful way.
>Thank you for asking, Tad. This is the subject of a _Mathematics of
>Memetics_ rant I've been writing off list and I'm glad to be given the
>opportunity to share. Although I, by no means, would expect or demand an
>equal level of interest or analysis from you, Tad. This is my personal
>obsession of late and we are two different people with different
>obsessions. I don't expect you to have to share the level of interest
>(R(x)) in this subject that I do, but I do welcome your thoughts on the

Why didn't you say so in the first place?!

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159