Re: virus: Logic

Richard Fawcett (
Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:08:49 +0100

On Oct 6, 9:55pm, Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> Subject: Re: virus: Logic
> Chardin wrote:
> > This seems like a good time for me to jump in and introduce myself.
> > I've been....
> > .....kindly inform me.
> A virus is good, bad or neutral depending on it's content. To be a virus is
simply an idea which
> can be spread to others.

I too am a newcomer having stumbled across this list just yesterday. However,
it seems pretty clear to me that the moral implications (good, bad, etc.) of a
virus are more to do with your value system than simply its content. Surely if
you claim such intellectual prowess this is an elementary mistake!

Have you guys read Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, and if so is there any
credibility in the idea for the meme/gene idea he discusses. Is it possible
that a social phenomena can be perpetuated with the help of a genetic trait on
biological virus?

>... If you truly want an exhilarating intellectual ride hang on
> for all your worth because these folks are sharp! It may in fact be so
addicting that you may
> want to quit. It's too much of a rush!
> The Nateman, self-ordained "Priest" of objectivism.
>-- End of excerpt from Nathaniel Hall

That remains to be seen.

(R. Fawcett)