virus: free thought

Paul Prestopnik (prestopnikp@additec.com)
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:46:25 -0500


> From: Kim Stogner[SMTP:KASTOGN@vm.sc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 1:26 PM
> To: church of virus
> Subject: Re: virus: interactive meme page project
>
> I agree with Brett that we should form our own opinions about the
> meaning of certain terms. Why strictly hold to someone else's
definition? Isn't
> free thought about thinking for yourself?

Free thought is about thinking for yourself. That does not mean you have
to have your own definitions for words. Imagine if you had a friend and
every time they said car they meant chair, when they said phone they meant
computer, etc. Now imagine trying to have a conversation with that person.
Would you say they were being a free thinker, or just a pain in the ass?
Communication cannot exist unless there is some agreement on what the
noises (or symbols) we make mean. This involves compromise, and it seems
to be the hardest thing in the world for many people to do. With regards
to communication it is usually the best practice to use the most common or
most well established definition for a word. If you have a new concept
communication would be best serviced by using a new word or phrase to
describe it. If I am correct Richard Dawkins coined the word meme in the
70's. His original meaning is no longer 100% correct, because the word has
undergone some revision, but the concept is very similar. The word meme
has been used to represent Dawkins meaning now for 20+ years (I think), and
if Brett wants to call something else a meme, all he is doing is confusing
new comers who do not understand what is meant. This does not necessarily
represent free thinking, although Brett certainly is a free thinker.

-Paul Prestopnik

-Paul Prestopnik