RE: virus: Faith, Logic and Purpose

Robin Faichney (
Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:26:42 -0000

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 06:22 PM 11/18/97 -0000, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >Nothing. What I said was, that despite the fact
> >that you seem generally more objectivist than me,
> >nevertheless I think I'm more scientifically
> >oriented and you're more morally oriented,
> >because I focus more on understanding how
> >things are, and you more on how they should be.
> Maybe. I'm still having trouble figuring out
> exactly what you are objecting to.
Who said that was an objection? I'm more
interested in understanding how things are
than in "righting" them, remember? :-)

> >> I didn't realize that Buddhism and rationality
> >> were incompatible.
> >>
> >I didn't say they were. I said Buddhism is
> >better suited to meme control.
> What do you mean by "meme control"?
I can see I'm going to have to look at the web
site again. Assuming you keep it up to date,
that is! :-) OK, it's slightly loose usage, but
surely understandable, that I'm talking about
minimizing infestations by memetic viruses,
which is what CoV is all about, isn't it?

> >I don't understand your response. I'd have thought
> >it obvious that I think the memetic paradigm is
> >useful. But perhaps you can say exactly what you
> >had in mind when you wrote that -- what, precisely,
> >does the memetic paradigm benefit?
> OK, but it will end up sounding the same. Knowing
> about memetics gives someone power over their memes.
> They are more wary about infection and can tell
> when their buttons are being pushed and it gives
> them (more) control over their response.
Ah, so you *do* know about meme control!
But I never questioned that -- well, except to
point out that on a really thorough memetic
analysis there is no "you" to do the
controlling, but you agreed with that, so what
are we arguing about here?

> >Don't understand this either. What does
> >"unrationality" mean?
> Neither rational nor irrational. It was brought up recently
> in the <faith> thread to describe a belief held independent
> of logic.
OK, so that's down to me skipping. But I'm
rather dubious about its meaningfulness.
Does "rational from one POV and irrational
from another" cover it? If it does, then I
think "unrational" is a misleading choice of
words, and if it doesn't, then I can't imagine
what it could mean.

> >one POV is wrong from another. But David, I
> >never thought you could be such a relativist!
> Well it turns out that I was being inconsistent, and
> hypocrisy is a sin you know :-)

> >Now, do you admit you've changed your mind,
> >or do you try to maintain that's something you
> >never have had and never will have to do? :-)
> Yes, as I mentioned a couple times on other threads, I have
> changed my mind about this within the last few weeks.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on exactly what it was you'd
changed your mind about. The suggestion that
you wouldn't admit it was rather a feeble joke -- I
was tired at the time!

> I'm
> still working on a new conceptual model (codename c-space
> for "context space") to help illucidate my theory.
Now, could it be that you've picked up the
importance of context from something you've
been reading recently?? :-)