>>OK. Here are 10 ideas. And you and others can judge whether you agree
with
>>them, (even if it isn't totally black or white).
>>1) It is best to have as many opinions as possible to select the best
model
>>and those opinions should "compete" against each other using arguments
>>and/or experiments. And, the opinions you hold might not be the best,
just
>>because they're yours--feedback from others is useful.
>>2)God (as imagined by what you imagine most Christians believe, not the
>>kind of "god of spontaneous order and complex systems" that
neo-Darwinists
>>might believe) does not exist.
>>3)There can always be someone better than you in anything.
>>4)It is better to have a revolution by focusing on changing the structure
>>of the mind (cause) as opposed to changing the structure of society
>>(symptom).
>>5)Human immortality is conceivable and human cloning should be tried.
>>6)The scientific method, which is the best form of inquiry we have,
doesn't
>>necessarily exclude shamanistic practices.
>>7)Language is an exosomatic organ.
>>8)Countries, corporations, and other large institutions aren't controlled
>>by one or a few individuals, but emerge spontaneously as a result of the
>>memetic environment.
>>9)The best type of political structure is one which allows the most
>>diversity with the least violence. And the way to create that structure
is
>>to form a structure that exists not because it's so great but just
because
>>it challenges other structures. This structure would be kind of like a
"New
>>World Order", in the sense that there's a general agreement that we
should
>>allow disagreement, unlike other "orders".
>>10) We should worship Prof. Tim as Great Guru or Prophet.:-)
>Okay, so here I go:
>1) Part a: Not always. From my experience trying to organize groups of
>people I can tell you that democracy works best the fewer choices you give
>people.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority, in which you really only DO have a
few choices, such as democrat (liberal) and republican (conservative) and
those "choices" are 2 sides of the same coin--they just play off each
other. Who wants democracy?
> Ideally two, maybe three options. (And five is RIGHT OUT!)
>1) Part b: Agree.
We both like Monty Python, which supports my case that we have the same
meme-complex.
>4) Disagree. Minds are shaped by their environment and revolutions of
the
>mind too easily co-opted by The Man.
For people to form an environment, there has to be the concept of that
environment first. Ask any architect. This cyber environment, for instance,
was created by the deliberate spread of all kinds of hype about how great
cyberspace will be.
>5) Part a: Disagree
>5) Part b: Why and to what end?
Why do you disagree that immortality is conceivable?
I think that it's a good thing to for man to aspire to become superman--to
move from mortality towards immortality to be a young stud for a long time.
You have other goals?
>6) Disagree. Objective methods have not proven to be good tools for
>evaluating subjective experiences. Science applied to art is folly.
In the movie, "Contact", Jodie Foster's subjective experience was verified
by scientific evidence. What kind of subjective experience do you think
cannot be evaluated by science?
>7) Of which body?
The human one. (or the extended phenotype)
>8) Disagree. And Part A does not follow from Part B.
I am distinguishing the metameme from another kind of meme-complex, which
is concerned with identifying what things ARE (their essence) as opposed to
what those things REPRESENT. In the meme-complex concerned with the
/essence/ of things, the problems with society are blamed on a few specific
individuals--the bad people--the ones who are /essentially/ evil.In the
metameme, on the other hand, blame for problems doesn't get assigned so
much to specific individuals as much as a condition that cannot necessarily
be located.
>9) Disagree. Conflict is useful and fullfilling for the human spirit.
>Revolutions are ugly and necessary. "New World Order" mutual tolerance is
a
>totalitarianism of apathy.
I agree with you about conflict, but there are some kinds of conflicts that
are more useful and fulfilling than others. If 2 sides, say, Hindus and
Muslims, wipe each other out in a nuclear war, they might not learn as much
(in this incarnation) as they would if they made more of a game of their
conflict. Like a war game, in which you simulate war by making the "war" as
realistic as possible without actually killing them. The best society or
way of life is one where you have the most opportunity to train for battle.
(Or train period.)
>10) Send money and sex.
I get the impression that when you tell people stuff like "don't follow me
as a guru, I'm wired differently than you" you're just selling people the
same old shit as guys like Rajneesh who say, "I'm not here to give you
anything, only to take things away".
>>Anyway, according to my theory, people into memetics would generally
agree
>>with *all* of these ideas. And people into a Platonistic meme-complex
>>(characterized by unmovable truths) would not.
>So where do I fall? 25% agreement, 41.7% disagreement, and 33.3% other.
On your fat ass, Tim.
--David R.