Re: virus: Goal of the church?

Marie Foster (
Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:48:06 -0700

Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
> At 09:30 AM 10/23/97 -0700, Marie wrote
> >After reading the posts on Christianity that have flown back and forth
> >it appears to me that the consensus of the members ( : of the church is
> >that the majority use of this meme is not a very good thing.
> >We also know that a meme or a gene becomes stronger in a hostile
> >environment.
snip big snip
> The proposed <nudge> takes on the characteristics of a zero-sum game
> (illustrated here by self-negation of badness and increased hostility which
> both negates this negation and itself...and which precludes the survival of
> any attempt which itself is either bad, hostile, negating, self-negating, or
> non-survival oriented). These are characteristics of "de-selection"* and
> are relegated to the gene which, by definition, concerns itself with chance,
> competition, destruction, and setting the stage for the propagation of a
> successful "memetic" mutation.
> So, assumption #6 above (that hostility is ineffective against badness)
> should be left for genetics to decide; while the suggestion that a
> successful meme could be manufactured which encourages it's demise (#5)
> would be better restated in a positive way: A new meme could be engineered
> which has the chance of "mutation" in the genetic game to replace the
> "Hostile Christian" gene; and this chance improves if it neither deals with
> hostility nor Christianity.
> Brett

ACK!!! I reread my message and see your problem was more in my
expression of it. The following is to try to see if I understood your
response, which was helpful to my learning how to communicate here.

I am also trying to keep the discussion KISS. You guys/gals have
stimulated more neurons than I have in my brain that are still available
(haha) and have sent me to the dictionary (thank goodness it is on-line)
just to keep up...

Anyway, Pinker in "The Language Instinct" argues that it would be
impossible to eliminate any idea that man has created using repression,
or recreating language to exclude the "words". (Highly simplified

I am wondering if things happen thus. Someone has an idea that 'clicks'
(for want of a better word) in the mind of another. That idea is the
kernel. As the new person adds the idea to their experience,
connections are made and the kernel either expands to accomodate the new
connection, or is modified by it... etc. I guess what I am getting at
is that while humans can operate in their environment and understand
each other enough to create our civilization, we can never fully
completely absolutely know for certaint that anyones *idea* is exactly
the same... This is not a weakness but a strength. If we had
telepathy, for example, we would not be separate from each other in

My *nudge* idea was that there is no way to eliminate a "thing that is
bad for us" once it has been created. (I knew there was some reason for
reading that story about Pandora.) But perhaps if we could calculate
the correct angle of attack, we could add something to the original
kernal that would deflect it into a better trajectory. (And Heinlein
raises his fist in salute?) I think he might agree that we probably
will not also be able to 'reason' our way out.

BTW Have you ever read "The Grand Inquisitor"?

Whew. Not sure if that is any better but my neurons have timed out!
And my lunch hour is almost up. Is this what you understood from my