BookTalk.org

Geo wrote:The idea that certain religious concepts can be embraced by a culture while other religious concepts from the same religious text can be largely ignored seems very meme-centric to me. It breaks down the larger religious texts into individual memes, a meme being a unit of culture. Many Christians ignore a good part of the Old Testament, but cannot jettison it completely because original sin is so intrinsically tied in with the New Testament's message of salvation. But these days almost nobody pays much attention to the Old Testament. Its God is laughably cartoonish. The New Testament's message of universal love and salvation, on the other hand, remains very appealing to the masses. And Christianity is alive and well, although arguably becoming less relevant. I wonder, at what point is critical mass reached wherein a culture rejects so much of a religion's texts that there's almost nothing left?

Out Of Context !!!

* Funny as can be ...

geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:
I can't expect any of you to understand because you immerse yourselves in the equivalent of pulp novels when it comes to God, religion and Christianity. TEog is an excellent example. That book has no substance to it. It is self contradictory and full of fluff and speculation.

I know, it's so unfeasible. All those, like, words!

When it's so much easier to believe that 6,000 years ago Magic Sky Daddy made the earth and later flooded it, destroying all humans except for Noah, a few friends, and a pair of every single species on the planet, who survived by living on Noah's boat. And then, even later, Magic Sky Daddy sent down his son, Jesus, to save all humans from original sin, a badness caused by Adam and Eve--the very first humans--when they ate an apple in the Garden of Eden.

Yes, so much more believable! So less self-contradictory, and so unfluffy!

If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

stahrwe wrote:
If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

With all due respect, Stahrwe, this is a discussion of Wright's book. His premise is that religion and "God" are human inventions. All of his arguments and speculations follow from that premise. He states this up front in the introduction. Obviously, you disagree with that premise and it is predictable that this book will hold no interest for you. And that's fine. Why don't you let us discuss the book and meanwhile you're perfectly free to have your Bible class discussions in those forums that are specifically set up for that purpose. Anyone who wants to participate with you knows where to find you.

stahrwe wrote: The point about Islam is that Allah is an impersonal god. One's postion (not relationship to him because that concept is alien to Islam) is based on works (the five pillars of Islam) and even then one's ultimate fate is unknowable.

stahrwe, I don't believe this. Have you been inside the heads of Muslims? If not, why are you so sure of the nature of their feelings toward their Abrahamic god?

stahrwe wrote: If you follow the thread Epistemology and Biblical Evidence you will see a fully developed structure of interrelationship develop for the Bible. We are just getting started there but with time it will emerge. On the other hand, TEog is, well, read page 117 for an example of spculation. That is the way the whole book is.

It's a kind of exploration that Wright does. Do you see him engaging in this exploration, or speculation if you prefer, and then coming to dogmatic conclusions based on it? If he did, I would find your criticism justified. But it appears that what bothers you is the simple fact that he raises the questions at all.

geo wrote: To be honest, I have largely ignored your ongoing debate with Robert regarding memes.

Your honesty appreciated!

One of these days I'd like you to spell out for me your resistance to the idea because I came in late and never quite got a handle on it. It might be interesting for us to read and discuss Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine sometime.

I'm aware of venturing into a hazardous area with meme-criticism. The reason I say this is that I can't disavow a plain emotional reaction against the concept, or maybe against what it represents. It repels me, to be plain, but repulsion is not something to rest on. People may be repelled by the selfish gene theory, but that's not a reason, as Dawkins rightly says.

We could take a closer look at the basis of memes sometime. Perhaps the most concise remark I could make at this point is that, considering the definition of meme as a unit of cultural transmission, there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of "units," and culture falls into the latter category. Marxism was the first attempt to bring science to the study of culture, and it failed just as I think memetics does.

there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of "units," and culture falls into the latter category. Marxism was the first attempt to bring science to the study of culture, and it failed just as I think memetics does.

This is one of the problems with memetics. In genes, even when it's nearly impossible to distinguish a specific unit, there is always the mind's eye view of a visual 'protein' the must, as least, serve as the lower limit to what a unit can be. In memetics, there are no clear distinctions. A single word with an accent could very well be a "sticky idea". See, I can't really use another term to describe what I mean here. "Sticky Idea" doesn't suffice. I really must use "meme" to explain myself, problems notwithstanding. A single word with an accent may for reasons unknown be catchier than other mundane words, and for some reason spread through society. Such a single word is possibly the lower limit to what a meme unit could be, but there are still problems. There would be variety within the unit, and even unspoken communication perhaps which is transmitted in parallel with the unit.

The way I've come to think of it is akin to how I think of a photon. It's a particle, but not really... it's also a wave. Meaning, it's not a discrete unit as we normally envision one, but is something of a "range" all to itself. To think in terms of units is to think too mechanically, which culture is not. Perhaps we should abandon the idea of units so that memetics can make progress. Or at least transplant the concept with one of lesser discretion. I can't even think of a word that would take it's place right now. "Unit" comes close, but misses the mark. The word is not an achilles heel to memetics, but rather a distraction. Memetics is elegant and disturbing when you consider it in the raw form; without our attempts to explain it. The evolutionary algorithm is the necker cube looking glass.

When you say that memes suffer from being too mechanical in concept, I agree. If there is a void needing to be filled by some other language concept, it should be adaptable to organic and emergent models of development and change. Memes as I usually hear them talked about seem to miss the boat on this score. It could be part of the reason that memes are now seldom mentioned in the scholarship on history and culture, and why they are used most often as synonynmous with "internet fads."

When you say that memes suffer from being too mechanical in concept, I agree.

I think this is backwards. Though many champions of memetics use mechanical terms, I think it is a linguistic failure rather than a conceptual failure.

In other words, if you think of memes in mechanical concepts, the theory suffers. Therefore, don't think of them mechanically. The same words may be used, as there are few good ways to explain the concept currently, but holding to less mechanical connotations helps.

Each sub-concept in memetics should be understood fuzzily. In practice, the phenomenon becomes apparent, but it's non-physical nature makes it tough to pin down. This is the same way I think of free will. I understand there is a disconnect between collections of neurons as data storage devices and how the world really is, but it's my inability to process the hidden layer rather than a failure of the concept. "A" is true and "C" is true, but "B" is an invisible bitch.

DWill wrote:

stahrwe wrote: The point about Islam is that Allah is an impersonal god. One's postion (not relationship to him because that concept is alien to Islam) is based on works (the five pillars of Islam) and even then one's ultimate fate is unknowable.

stahrwe, I don't believe this. Have you been inside the heads of Muslims? If not, why are you so sure of the nature of their feelings toward their Abrahamic god?

Read a book. I can recommend several. You might also read the Koran. Islam is a very fatalistic religion.