The Selfish Meme?

stahrwe · Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:19 pm

tat tvam asi wrote:

Interbane wrote:


	Quote: This specifically provides an explanation for everything which follows in the history of Israel, yet, Wright prefers to invent his own history. What happened to Oakum's razor in this case?

History accords to the uniformity we see in nature VERSUS magical things happened. Ockham's Razor still applies here.

You have it backwards, the history which is invented is told in the bible...

Very backwards indeed. Wright invents his own history? Ah, no! He's talking about modern archaeology and things that are quite well known in this day and age. Oakum's razor? Come on. Really? A NASA scientists who doesn't even know how to spell Ockham's Razor or use the spell check on his tool bar? Lying idiot...

No evidence for an historical Abraham.
And certainly no evidence for a migration from the north.

No evidence for an historical Moses.
And certainly no evidence for an historical Exodus which is contradicted by the actual archaeological evidence of that time period.

The polytheism is that of the Canaanite based Elohim pantheon. And ancient Judaism is something that arose out of the local Canaanite population, not some mythical migration from the north pertaining to the polytheism of Ur that contradicts the historical record and has no historical evidence to support it any way. The claim of polytheism has nothing do with the mythical story of a migration from Ur, it has to do with the immediate Canaanite polytheism of the region and the ancient Jews as a sect from the local population of Canaan that arose after the final collapse of the Egyptian run city-state system of Canaan.

They would not become monotheistic until after going through a phase of monolatry first. We have one sect of the population trying to separate itself away from the rest and these myths of Abraham and Moses came from that ongoing process of evolution within that region of the world. And archaeologists feel that it came from the lower class serfs and slaves gathering around in the hill country following the final collapse of the Egyptian ruled Canaanite city-state system. This trumps any pointing at bible verses or apologists trying to use bible verses in order to negate what some one like Wright is talking about while addressing the polytheism of ancient Judasim, obviously. It's not Wright who's in error and doesn't know the bible, he's simply discussing the evidence of modern archaeology which is a slap in the face to traditional assumptions about the historicity of the bible.

tat, where on earth have you been hiding. did you decide to come back for more education?

Of course, Abram, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Ahab, Jesus, fill in the blank never existed. I am still waiting in the epistemology thread for someone to explain the 907200 day prophecy.

tat tvam asi · Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:48 pm


	Stahrwe wrote: tat, where on earth have you been hiding.

In the shadow of your radiant light.


	Stahrwe wrote: did you decide to come back for more education?

Yes, why else would I be here?

You are great. Your knowledge of history, science, and religion is second to none. Your grammar is such that one can marvel in the delight of having the privilege and honor of reading through it. Oakum's razor shows how very familiar you are with the term and speaks multitudes concerning your extensive scientific upbringing and education. Let's face it, you are a light to the world and everyone knows it. So please, by all means, continue your lesson on the blind ignorance of Robert Wright and his make believe version of world history and human evolution.

geo · Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:53 pm


	DWill wrote: Ah, but Robert, tell me about one natural law we can deduce about culture that actually informs us about culture

DWill, I had previously mentioned how religions frame our primitive biological sexual urges in religious tenets terms. Procreation becomes a sacred obligation that is blessed by the church. Or the very institution of marriage becoming a sacred pact, bound up into religious doctrine. Doesn't that qualify?

stahrwe · Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:10 pm

Glad to see tat is still such a fan. Unfortunately the engineers at NASA have a reputation for deplorable written communications skills. At one time there was a plan to cycle them through college basic writing classes but not much came of it. Oh well, when you lack substance go for the petty.

geo · Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:45 pm

Let's try to stay on topic here. In-fighting between members can surely be taken elsewhere. Your cooperation is appreciated.

DWill · Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:52 pm

geo wrote:


	DWill wrote: Ah, but Robert, tell me about one natural law we can deduce about culture that actually informs us about culture

DWill, I had previously mentioned how religions frame our primitive biological sexual urges in religious tenets terms. Procreation becomes a sacred obligation that is blessed by the church. Or the very institution of marriage becoming a sacred pact, bound up into religious doctrine. Doesn't that qualify?

geo, I feel that at times it's important to be literal and rather narrow perhaps. No, I don't think that qualifies as a natural law, a physical law of nature.

Interbane · Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:20 pm

Memetics and natural laws? Sex sells. Ideas with sexual connotations spread. It is still a step removed, but if there is any place to start it would be with sex.

geo · Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:43 am

DWill wrote:

geo wrote:


	DWill wrote: Ah, but Robert, tell me about one natural law we can deduce about culture that actually informs us about culture

DWill, I had previously mentioned how religions frame our primitive biological sexual urges in religious tenets terms. Procreation becomes a sacred obligation that is blessed by the church. Or the very institution of marriage becoming a sacred pact, bound up into religious doctrine. Doesn't that qualify?

geo, I feel that at times it's important to be literal and rather narrow perhaps. No, I don't think that qualifies as a natural law, a physical law of nature.

I guess I don't know what a natural law is. You mean something like inertia or gravity? Sexual reproduction is a part of nature and is certainly well represented culturally.

By the way, earlier I gave some example of ways I think Wright is meme-centric (even if he doesn't specifically discuss memetics), but I forgot one glaring example. Wright discusses game theory quite a bit. And game theory as applied to culture is certainly a memetic view, is it not?

Interbane · Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:18 am

The alternative is perhaps a supernatural law? Or chaotic randomness? Culture most certainly follows paths of formulation and propagation which could be called natural laws. The problem is, the complexity keeps it terra incognita for the time being. I think thermodynamics can be considered a law even before we discovered it as such, unless there is some valid reason to do away with the uniformity of nature.

Forum rules

The Selfish Meme? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!