Re: virus: Limiting
SwiftRain (swiftrain@geocities.com)
Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:09:25 -0500
tom.holz wrote:
>
[snip]
> me <meme>, me happy!
> you not <meme> :(
> you should <meme> :)
brilliant!
this is what i wanted/expected to see on this list: perspective
taking on the memetic process.
(what we appear to have instead is essentially the same unexamined
process of memetic warfare that goes on in the rest of the world, with
memetic terminology thrown in occasionally as a rhetorical technique.)
unfortunately for most of *my* memes, there is a significant
(short-term?) advantage given to those memes which successfully
annihilate any critical discussion of themselves.
God, Love, etc, exploit this weakness by being "undefinable," which
is to say they encompass whatever definition is most appropriate at the
moment for avoiding criticism:
"what about the physical laws, evolution, etc?"
"well, God made those."
"what about the fact that God doesn't seem to have any physical
substance?"
"well, God isn't a physical entity. it's a quality of other
entities."
the spectacularly virulent meme of Self, as well as exploiting this
weakness (and a *host* of others), provides itself shelter by attempting
to *become the standard of criticism*:
"should the God meme and the Love meme succeed in actively
inhabiting this human brain?"
"let's see what the Self meme thinks. it's in charge."
"ok, well then, should the Self meme succeed in actively inhabiting
this human brain?"
"of course. the Self meme believes itself, in fact, to be
*extremely essential*, in fact *unavoidable*."
layers under layers of defenses. and unfortunately there is no
particular reason you should wish to break them down: unless, like me,
you host a meme which endorses the idea.
remember:
THE OBJECTIVE IS: the survival of the meme.
[snip]
--
http://www.sudval.org/users/swifty/