DWill,

Thanks for the positive input, the statement, and the question.

It is not often that I find someone who can read my words that express my interests and then have my interests pass to them, seemingly intact. This is good news to me. I often get responses where I’m told how stupid I am, insane, or speaking a foreign language.

I don’t know how someone can object to memes; perhaps a more specific statement can bring me up to speed?

As to being converted, in reference to memes, I am in the dark. As to being converted or having your current path altered by reading Bloom’s work, that will happen, it seems to me, it is unavoidable, you can avoid reading, but once reading, anything really, I think your path will change either slightly or significantly.

I can tell you honestly, and I think very accurately, that my path has changed significantly since reading The Lucifer Principle and then The Global Brain; two eye opening windows into another way of seeing that which is to be seen.

I really like the analogy of playing 3 way chess and having someone hand me a second queen to place on the board. The perspective offered by Bloom could already be something you see, just not something you see a clearly as possible.

The new book is not easy for me to read, not that it isn’t written well, I think that it is written very well for people who have a specific political viewpoint that I do not share, a viewpoint that I oppose, as far as I can tell. This contentious viewpoint of mine contributes to my difficulty in reading the Genius of the Beast. I read it just fine; perhaps I use the wrong words: the digesting of it is difficult; I really have to bend my viewpoint around to get past my bias. I have to be even more objective than the writer; perhaps.

I won’t be converted to capitalism or memes, those things are what they are, and I am not those things, they are separate from me.

If you have ever read Eric Fromm, you may be in a better position to know my contentions with The Genius of the Beast.

How about this:

If the new book is like a Trojan horse, converting the unwary, just know that the gift is filled with things that may harm you, take the gift, and use it for a bonfire?

Hail,

I am at my copy of Genius of the Beast, it is digital, it is on a hard drive, and it now occurs to me to write about it, instead of reading it – for some reason this is what I see, to be, what I will do now.

This book addresses more than merely the salvation of a Nation of people, it addresses the path the must be taken in avoidance of a pre-mature end of our species.

That last sentence contains much of my objections to the book, as I’ve read it so far, with its obvious bias. My hope is to read through the book and have my contentions, my objections, seen clearly, laid out bare naked, and solvable, understandable, reasonable, and most importantly, to have these barriers, these contentions, left behind, where the path forward clearly avoids repeating similar road blocks, similar bottle necks, similar arguments, similar unnecessary conflicts, similar wastes of time and energy (power) that suck the life out of living.

Now that is a paragraph that can serve to be more specific concerning my concerns about the book. I’d have to write my own book to be as specific as Howard.

The seriousness of what this book addresses, again, is nothing less than the survival of our species, in my own way of seeing it. The path around our unfortunate end will be taken, or it won’t.

That is an objective viewpoint.

Joe Kelley wrote: I don’t know how someone can object to memes; perhaps a more specific statement can bring me up to speed?

Tongue just a bit in cheek with the conversion remark, but yes, as a few people here are aware I haven't been able to grasp what memes are supposed to be, have also been openly doubtful. I think it's essential to be absolutely literal when examining this theory to be sure we are not elevating a metaphor to a physical reality. I haven't read any of Bloom's books, but Chris gave me a copy of Global Brain. Using the index, I find this as part of the description: "meme--a habit, a technique, a twist of feeling, a sense of things, which flips easily from brain to brain...Memes could carry their message via the swift intangibles of scent, sight, and sound" (p. 30). I see a concept in that, a way of envisioning language and culture, but if memes are supposed to have physical properties, as genes do, evidence needs to be provided. What instrument has been able to register a meme? Just how do we know they're there?

In your opinion, does Bloom deliver the goods that should remove doubts like mine?

DWill,

I know of only one irrefutable fact, all other perceptions posed as facts are subject to possible refinement, improvement, adjustment, greater precision, greater accuracy, and this, I suppose, requires doubt.

If the thing in view is the thing that is called a meme, not the sun, then the absolute perfect understanding of it, without doubt, is not within my power.

I have do doubt that I must, absolutely, avoid looking directly at the sun. I believe this to be true. I have no doubt about it, but I am fallible, certainly fallible, I have no doubt about that either, and so one thing tends to contradict the other, leaving doubt about it, tiny doubt, small doubt, miniscule doubt, but doubt none the less. Contradiction is cause for doubt.

I return to the one fact, the absolute one, and leave an open mind to varying degrees on all other things seen.

I did not get the idea that a meme is a thing, an entity, a measurable mass, a particle, a physically measurable object, or perhaps, a “physical reality”.

The observation that can be called a meme, as far as I understand the phenomenon, the process, the statistical occurrence among our species, is akin to things like fashion; like a popular song.

The meme isn’t the song, as far as I understand the observation, the song is a song, sounds, things that cause brain function in a measurable way are songs, while the meme is the connective thing, I suppose, the meme is the way of looking how the song connects all the people who share it, willingly, like moths to a flame.

I may be all wrong about this, I read about memes in Howard’s book, I’ve seen the word used since, the word has gained currency, and the word illustrates a meme, as it connects people. Like euphemism is a word and it is an example of a euphemism. Why not call a lie a lie?

In my opinion Bloom delivers a possible improvement in perception, I don’t think he is in the removing doubt business. I don’t get that business. I don’t think he does either. I can’t speak for him. I think he has a scientific mind, he must know that his is fallible too.

Joe Kelley wrote:If the thing in view is the thing that is called a meme, not the sun, then the absolute perfect understanding of it, without doubt, is not within my power.

Joe, thanks for your sincere attempt to explain the idea to me. I'm not looking for any kind of perfect, doubt-free understanding. I just need to know, to put it bluntly, whether memes are something I can or cannot safely ignore. I could not safely ignore, in terms of intellectual integrity, evolution or genes or historical geology. Those are facts which, if I was to ignore them, would result in placing myself in a partial fantasy world. So the question I ask myself is whether memes can have anything like that level of verification. If the answer is no, we are not dealing with a scientific principle but with philosophy or belief. That is not to denigrate the whole concept of a meme, just to give it a category.

I did not get the idea that a meme is a thing, an entity, a measurable mass, a particle, a physically measurable object, or perhaps, a “physical reality”. The observation that can be called a meme, as far as I understand the phenomenon, the process, the statistical occurrence among our species, is akin to things like fashion; like a popular song.

The meme isn’t the song, as far as I understand the observation, the song is a song, sounds, things that cause brain function in a measurable way are songs, while the meme is the connective thing, I suppose, the meme is the way of looking how the song connects all the people who share it, willingly, like moths to a flame.

A meme sounds to me, from this poetic description, like an imaginative idea, or in your words, a way of looking. I'm still thinking that either a meme is not science or we must extend the boundary of science to include it. I'm not arguing with you at all unless you are saying that memes are something science has been able to demonstrate the existence of, even tentatively. As a "way of looking," they appear to suit individual purposes, just not mine.

DWill,

If the purpose of science is understood by you and you find cause to offer that understanding to someone else, so as to allow someone else the opportunity to know the purpose of science, as you do, then how do you employ science toward that end?

How do you accurately transfer your understanding of science to someone other than you?

Bear with me please, I think I am addressing your communication to me, as I think I understand that message accurately, and my next sentence may clear things up.

Why does the true understanding of science manage to transfer from person to person and how can that answer be presented as a physical measurement?

If you answer that question above, how do you transfer your answer to me? If you transfer your answer to me, accurately, but you have great difficulty transferring your answer to anyone else, for some as yet mysterious reason, what do you employ to explain the difference in transferability?

Why does the data transfer accurately to some people and not to other people?

Perhaps that last sentence works better to accomplish the goal?

If the tool called science is used to accomplish a more accurate measure of light particles, or waves, or for a more accurate measure of what causes gravity or electricity, then the user of the tool can “safely ignore” the meme in that employment of science to that end. That is what I think. I am often wrong.

If, on the other hand, the person using science to study gravity is someone who has been indoctrinated into a belief that smoking cigarettes will boost your health, and that false fashionable idea is being replaced by a more accurate one, where the tendency now is to suggest that smoking is not so good for your health, then that example of what may be called a meme cannot safely be ignored, in a measurable way – perhaps not absolutely without all safety.

Perhaps the scientist working on gravity is on the verge of discovering a possible synthetic form of gravity, I don’t know if that is possible, and that scientist dies from a blood clot, and the death is measurably attributable to tobacco consumption.

Had the scientist listened to the study of memes, long enough to give up the idea that smoking was a good idea, in this hypothetical case, the idea of synthetic gravity may have transferred from that one person to other people intact and accurately in some measurable way. People are floating around now.

Perhaps synthetic gravity is not safe. I don’t know, and I if I did know: how can I teach myself how better to transfer that knowledge intact?

I believe that a meme, which is a “way of seeing”, is like looking at “universal grammar”, which may be another thing that can safely be ignored by someone trying to figure out how better to understand gravity.

Now I am babbling. Babbling can sometimes measure up as an example of a meme. Why do people listen to lies told by politicians, and believe them?

Perhaps my response is overdone, or even lacking in grammar, lacking in transferability, insufficient to accomplish the goal.

I can rely upon quotes?

I just need to know, to put it bluntly, whether memes are something I can or cannot safely ignore.

If you are suddenly struck with the urge to invade Iran to spread democracy or find those pesky weapons of mass destruction, then the answer could be yes in your case. I may be misunderstanding the whole concept, so my answer is along the lines of maybe.

My way of employing the thing in my view is useful to me as I try to avoid things that are not safe. A false meme is not the same example as a true meme, and to help in the effort to understand what I am trying to say, as a response to what I read from you, I offer this link:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lite ... cture.html

Particularly this quote:

Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE.

Some people study the “way of seeing” that comes up with words like “meme” and sometimes the ideal behind that employment of power (time and energy) is not safe to the targeted market.

I think that the word “meme” is also along the same lines as the word “propaganda”.

Now there are three terms that can polarize the viewpoint.

1. Meme
2. Universal grammar
3. Propaganda

Which term is more useful and which goal, or interest, does it serve in any specific case?

Your case can be an illustrated example, as can mine. In my case all three words are useful and the goal in mind is to improve my perspective, and more specifically: to increase my power to perceive accurately.

I look at political economy. That is what I do. I do so because failing to do so will leave me unarmed, in my view. I will fail to gain the necessary power required to survive well, if I fail to perceive political economy accurately.

I have a one sentence explanation of my work in perceiving political economy more accurately, but that is not the topic.

I have reached that point of overdoing the response, almost certianly?

As a "way of looking," they appear to suit individual purposes, just not mine.

Here is an example of a meme (perhaps): tl;dr

I an curious about your purpose, but that may not be a topical curiosity.

If the thing in view is the thing that is called a meme, not the sun, then the absolute perfect understanding of it, without doubt, is not within my power.

Is this your

I know of only one irrefutable fact, all other perceptions posed as facts are subject to possible refinement, improvement, adjustment, greater precision, greater accuracy, and this, I suppose, requires doubt.

?

Lawrence,

I do not understand the question.

A meme, as far as I know, is a phenomenon. If a meme is a physical reality like a star, something that radiates brightly, then I'm having more trouble seeing a meme compared to how easy it is to see stars.

The star is a source of light, and that makes it easy to see. The star is a physical reality.

That is what I meant by the first sentence.

This:

If the thing in view is the thing that is called a meme, not the sun, then the absolute perfect understanding of it, without doubt, is not within my power.

I can add to that observation communicated to you another observatoin communicated to you where I compare my persent understanding of a meme as seen by Howard Bloom and my understanding of universal grammar as seen by Noam Chomsky.

I do not see “universal grammar” as a physical thing such as a star, and I don't think that Noam Chomsky does either.

A star is easy to see.

A meme (as seen by Howard Bloom, or you) is not easy to see.

Universal grammar (as seen by you or Noam Chomsky) is not easy to see - compared to seeing a star.

A star seen by me, you, Noam Chomsky, or Howard Bloom is easy to see in the same way for each of us – I presume.

The next sentence is not significantly related (not the same thing) as the first sentence you quoted.

This:

I know of only one irrefutable fact, all other perceptions posed as facts are subject to possible refinement, improvement, adjustment, greater precision, greater accuracy, and this, I suppose, requires doubt.

That is referring to anyone having doubts about memes, stars, universal grammar, looking directly at stars, placing your hand in a fire, shooting someone with a high powered gun, torture, mass murder, survival of the species, personal survival, birth, life, living, living well, being tortured, being threatened, happiness, profit, loss, cost, music, friends, love, hate, building models of World War Two fighter aircraft, reading, or anything that anyone may have doubts about, since it seems to me that doubt is inherent in perception. There is only one fact that isn’t subject to doubt, as far as I know. I'm not speaking about belief.

If you are wondering what that one fact is, and it isn’t just mine, presumably this fact is everyone’s one fact, then, if that is your question to me, then my request to you is to discover it. If you see it, let me know what you see.

I can then tell you if it is the same fact that I see: the one irrefutable fact; the one fact that is proven even as anyone endeavors to disprove it.

Joe Kelley wrote: I an curious about your purpose, but that may not be a topical curiosity.

Joe,
I know there is a lot more to respond to in your post than just the statement above, but I think, as you imply by that statement, that we have much different interests in approaching the question about memes. I am trying to be cut-and-dried about the matter, while you are more into subtleties of epistemology. I like subtlelty, and hope I have the ability to appreciate it, but for my simple purpose right now, it doesn't suit. If I do read Bloom's new book, maybe my mind will open more to the things that most interest you about the subject.

Bill

DWill wrote:

Joe Kelley wrote: I don’t know how someone can object to memes; perhaps a more specific statement can bring me up to speed?

Tongue just a bit in cheek with the conversion remark, but yes, as a few people here are aware I haven't been able to grasp what memes are supposed to be, have also been openly doubtful. I think it's essential to be absolutely literal when examining this theory to be sure we are not elevating a metaphor to a physical reality. I haven't read any of Bloom's books, but Chris gave me a copy of Global Brain. Using the index, I find this as part of the description: "meme--a habit, a technique, a twist of feeling, a sense of things, which flips easily from brain to brain...Memes could carry their message via the swift intangibles of scent, sight, and sound" (p. 30). I see a concept in that, a way of envisioning language and culture, but if memes are supposed to have physical properties, as genes do, evidence needs to be provided. What instrument has been able to register a meme? Just how do we know they're there?

In your opinion, does Bloom deliver the goods that should remove doubts like mine?

Bill, the point of the idea of memes is solely that the causal processes of evolution which we see in biology also occur in the realm of ideas and culture. The ideas prevalent today have a provenance from earlier ideas, and have not sprung forth from nothing. Think of it in terms of Keynes' observation that "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

Every idea enters the world with causal power, greater or lesser, good or evil, enduring or ephemeral. As Heidegger put it, ideas plough the furrow of time. An idea with strong fecundity, durability and identity establishes a large meme, which continues to evolve in the same evolutionary causal way as biology. The argument is that all complex life obeys the law of evolution, so ideas, as an example of complex life, can be seen as following an adaptive path, which Dawkins describes as memetic.

Bloom is inventing new memes to establish a constructive myth for capitalism. His concepts such as secular genesis and messianic capitalism are intended to confront conventional thinking through a positive and practical cosmology.