Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2010, 12:19 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(02-12-2010 10:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That is the exact same question save for the fact that you dropped the "or".

If I ask you, "Do people become Atheists because they have no souls or because they hate their parents," would you be inclined to answer it?
Well let's see.
Soul is a matter of faith, and as such is not a matter of fact. So there are some atheists who do not believe in soul, because soul is just as irrational and unprovable as is God. And I can not say that some atheists are not so, just to be a thorn in the side of their Theist parents, so yes I imagine there are atheists who are atheistic because they hate their parents.





Quote:In all seriousness, I don't think it's a generalization at all. Rather I think it's a sober opinion based on a rational observation of Christianity.

If I say "Africans" anything, it's a generalisation. There are 54 countries in Africa and about 2 000 languages. There are 38 000 Christian denominations. You can't treat Christians as a single group without generalising.
Except Christianity is not Africans.
Christianity is a religious doctrine grounded in specific precepts and from those precepts sectarian values relating to them exist. There is a great difference between making an observation regarding the prescepts of the religion of Christianity and the observation of the individual Christian.



Quote:Perhaps I should have phrased my observation to read, "religious doctrine" as opposed to faith.
Thus my observation would have read: "If someone requires a religious doctrine to influence them to be morally upright, decent, good people, then their moral character is weak from the beginning.
"
Then I renew my objection. Every single human being gets their morality from a construct that is taught to them. I fail to see why someone has weaker moral character if that construct is religious than if it is secular.
My observation was related to someone who believes their moral character is made stronger only through adoption of a religious moral doctrine. In adopting that atop what they were afforded by instruction in morality in the secular realm, be it through family or community, if that initial character was immoral and they feel they have to have a religious doctrine to make up the deficit, then their initial moral platform was weak and as such their entire character is subject to assuming a guise based on faith, rather than having integrity separate and apart from a faith.

Quote:I agree with you that Atheists can be moral beings. I don't agree with the position that only the religious can be moral.
Nor do I, nor did I ever say that.

Quote:But Atheists get their morality from a memeplex the same as every other human just like all humans draw oxygen from Earth's atmosphere. That's just how it works. To say that one group of people has weak moral character because they draw their direction from a memeplex is like saying that one group of humans are weak of body because they need to breathe oxygen.

Morality is not universal. People receive their sense of right conduct, decency, character, integrity, from the teachings and examples, the role models afforded through family and culture. It's nothing at all like drawing oxygen from the Earth's atmosphere, else that would imply morality is universal like unto oxygen.An elemental construct present world wide, which morality is not.
Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2010, 06:00 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(02-12-2010 10:31 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Cetaceaphile.

Quote:Is it just me, Ghost, or do you dance around anything presented to you?

Allow me to retort directly then. No I do not. I find your question insulting, defamatory and, to be frank, cowardly.

Wink

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 11:26 AM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:Quote:
I agree with you that Atheists can be moral beings. I don't agree with the position that only the religious can be moral.
Nor do I, nor did I ever say that.

Are you being argumentative about two points that we agree on?

Quote:Quote:
But Atheists get their morality from a memeplex the same as every other human just like all humans draw oxygen from Earth's atmosphere. That's just how it works. To say that one group of people has weak moral character because they draw their direction from a memeplex is like saying that one group of humans are weak of body because they need to breathe oxygen.

Morality is not universal. People receive their sense of right conduct, decency, character, integrity, from the teachings and examples, the role models afforded through family and culture. It's nothing at all like drawing oxygen from the Earth's atmosphere, else that would imply morality is universal like unto oxygen.An elemental construct present world wide, which morality is not.

I think I agree with you when you say morality is not universal. There is no universal morality, there is only culturally specific morality. But every single human has a moral code. So what one's morality is is not universal but having morality is.

Family and culture transmit a morality memeplex.

It's comparison to breathing lies in the fact that humans can no more act morally without a morality memeplex than they can survive without breathing.

Quote:My observation was related to someone who believes their moral character is made stronger only through adoption of a religious moral doctrine. In adopting that atop what they were afforded by instruction in morality in the secular realm, be it through family or community, if that initial character was immoral and they feel they have to have a religious doctrine to make up the deficit, then their initial moral platform was weak and as such their entire character is subject to assuming a guise based on faith, rather than having integrity separate and apart from a faith.

What you're suggesting is that everyone learns secular morality and then makes a decision to tack religious morality on top of that to "make up the deficit". The problem with this is that it flies in the face of both cultural transmission and developmental theory.

Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems theory proposes that our development is governed by our relationships to people and our environment. His model consists of four seperate contexts. The person (biological context) nested within the Mesosytsem (family, school, religion, neighbourhood) nested within the Exosystem (government institutions, socio-economic status) nested within the Macrosystem (the beliefs and values of the larger culture). What is important about this is that it is impossible to compartmentalise the influence of any one thing within a context. That is to say that within the Mesosystem, the individual is infulenced by family, school, religion and their neighbours SIMULTANEOUSLY throughout development.

But that's about development.

When you look at it memetically, the question is, what causes a person to act either morally or immorally? The answer is memes. Nobody has an imorality memeplex. People only do things they consider moral, however skewed that perception may be. But that's a digression. The point is that moral behaviour is impossible without a morality memeplex. More to the point, memetic theory backs up Bronfenbrenner's theory in that we are constantly being bombarded by the transmission of memes from all sources.

Now I must admit that some of what you said was confusing. It sounds like the initial weak platform you're discussing was a secular morality. I'm going to assume that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like.

I think the issue that I have with the idea of someone deciding that their moral code is lacking and that they need to turn to religion to get a better or beefed up moral code is that if anyone is looking for ways to act more morally than they currently are, they will turn to SOMEONE to learn a new way.

It seems to me that part of what you're saying is that people should be able to act morally WITHOUT religious morality and that people who use morality from a religious doctrine need to do so BECAUSE they can't be moral enough without it because they are morally weak to begin with. But that suggests that secular morality functions differently somehow than religious morality. It doesn't. It's all just memes.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 12:09 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
i so wish there was a Multi-quote option. Smile

(03-12-2010 11:26 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:Quote:
I agree with you that Atheists can be moral beings. I don't agree with the position that only the religious can be moral.
Nor do I, nor did I ever say that.


Are you being argumentative about two points that we agree on?
Not at all. The way you worded your reply in the later; "I don't agree with the position that only the religious can be moral." appeared as if you were countering or disagreeing with something you thought I had also included in a former reply.


[quote]But Atheists get their morality from a memeplex the same as every other human just like all humans draw oxygen from Earth's atmosphere. That's just how it works. To say that one group of people has weak moral character because they draw their direction from a memeplex is like saying that one group of humans are weak of body because they need to breathe oxygen.

Morality is not universal. People receive their sense of right conduct, decency, character, integrity, from the teachings and examples, the role models afforded through family and culture. It's nothing at all like drawing oxygen from the Earth's atmosphere, else that would imply morality is universal like unto oxygen.An elemental construct present world wide, which morality is not.

I think I agree with you when you say morality is not universal. There is no universal morality, there is only culturally specific morality. But every single human has a moral code. So what one's morality is is not universal but having morality is.
I would posit that sociopaths do not have a moral code. Generalizations are always a mistake, yes? Wink

Quote:Family and culture transmit a morality memeplex.

It's comparison to breathing lies in the fact that humans can no more act morally without a morality memeplex than they can survive without breathing.

My observation was related to someone who believes their moral character is made stronger only through adoption of a religious moral doctrine. In adopting that atop what they were afforded by instruction in morality in the secular realm, be it through family or community, if that initial character was immoral and they feel they have to have a religious doctrine to make up the deficit, then their initial moral platform was weak and as such their entire character is subject to assuming a guise based on faith, rather than having integrity separate and apart from a faith.

What you're suggesting is that everyone learns secular morality and then makes a decision to tack religious morality on top of that to "make up the deficit". The problem with this is that it flies in the face of both cultural transmission and developmental theory.
Meme's or "culturgen" , are just as much a theory as anything else when it comes to social evolution.
What is not supported by your theory is the example set forth by inmates incarcerated in Prisons, sometimes for life or on death row. Most of the prison systems in the U.S. issue a King James Bible along with other materials to new inmate arrivals. Many prisoners who were not religious before incarceration, assume a religious identity once in prison. They then very often become ideal models as the counter opposite of the personality they presented upon arrival and while on the streets.
In interviews they will admit they adopted the teachings of the Christ in order to better their situation in Prison and find forgiveness for what caused them to be sentenced and then they assume the moral demeanor they believe is directly attributed to that profile afforded by a "true" Christian.

Therefore, there is but one example of a personality who's moral character was in deficit and who assumed a religious ideology in order to make up for what that person felt was lacking in their personal character.


Quote:I think the issue that I have with the idea of someone deciding that their moral code is lacking and that they need to turn to religion to get a better or beefed up moral code is that if anyone is looking for ways to act more morally than they currently are, they will turn to SOMEONE to learn a new way.
Not always true, as denoted above in the prisoner example. Those prisoners turned to a religious ideology and a book, to "beef" up their moral code that was formerly in deficit prior to assuming a religious identity.

Quote:It seems to me that part of what you're saying is that people should be able to act morally WITHOUT religious morality and that people who use morality from a religious doctrine need to do so BECAUSE they can't be moral enough without it because they are morally weak to begin with. But that suggests that secular morality functions differently somehow than religious morality. It doesn't. It's all just memes.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
As said, Meme's are a theory. You sound as if you discount peoples personal responsibility for their actions and choices and thus, the viral influence of a meme is instead responsible through genetic transmission and societal infection.
Not all people who assume a religious doctrine do so to bolster what was formerly a weak personal character. However, it can not be said that no one does so. Secular morality does function differently than religious morality.

Quote:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Blaise Pascal
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 12:53 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:Meme's or "culturgen" , are just as much a theory as anything else when it comes to social evolution.

Boooooooooooo.

Are you really going to dismiss something inconvenient because it's a theory when many world leaders like Dawkins, Blackmore and Dennett, all PhDs, have written voluminously on the subject? If you are, don't complain the next time someone dismisses evolution.

As far as "culturgen" it was an idea put forward in 1981 by EO Wilson and Charles Lumsden and is similar to the meme but it differs in that the culturgen is subservient to genes rather than a competitor. The idea lost favour long ago, even with EO Wilson.

Quote:I would posit that sociopaths do not have a moral code. Generalizations are always a mistake, yes?

I give you points, but I gotta object. Sociopathy is a disorder. Sociopathy isn't how something works, it's how it fails to work.

Quote:What is not supported by your theory is the example set forth by inmates incarcerated in Prisons, sometimes for life or on death row. Most of the prison systems in the U.S. issue a King James Bible along with other materials to new inmate arrivals. Many prisoners who were not religious before incarceration, assume a religious identity once in prison. They then very often become ideal models as the counter opposite of the personality they presented upon arrival and while on the streets.
In interviews they will admit they adopted the teachings of the Christ in order to better their situation in Prison and find forgiveness for what caused them to be sentenced and then they assume the moral demeanor they believe is directly attributed to that profile afforded by a "true" Christian.

I don't think that it is not supported by what I'm saying.

I gotta admit, I'm pretty sick today. I'm having a hard time concentrating.

I'm going to say that I agree with you that people of "questionable moral character" can find guidance through Christianity or Islam and become people of "stronger moral fiber". I can dig it.

It's the if/then that I'm having an issue with.

Quote:You sound as if you discount peoples personal responsibility for their actions and choices and thus, the viral influence of a meme is instead responsible through genetic transmission and societal infection.

I actually wouldn't say anything like that because that's not at all how memes work.

Quote:Not all people who assume a religious doctrine do so to bolster what was formerly a weak personal character.

OK. Cool. I'm with you. I was of the opinion that you were saying otherwise. Sweet.

Quote:However, it can not be said that no one does so.

Agreed.

I still fail to see what the problem with doing so is.

Quote:Secular morality does function differently than religious morality.

In what way?

As for quoting, I just copy and paste the text and put in the html code manually.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 03:58 PM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(03-12-2010 12:53 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:Meme's or "culturgen" , are just as much a theory as anything else when it comes to social evolution.

Boooooooooooo.

Are you really going to dismiss something inconvenient because it's a theory when many world leaders like Dawkins, Blackmore and Dennett, all PhDs, have written voluminously on the subject? If you are, don't complain the next time someone dismisses evolution.
Richard Dawkins is a prolific author on the topic of atheism, as well holds a credential as a evolutionary biologist. He is not a world leader.

And one can call the idea of meme's or relicators, into question and that in no wise is tantamount to disparaging evolution.

Quote:As far as "culturgen" it was an idea put forward in 1981 by EO Wilson and Charles Lumsden and is similar to the meme but it differs in that the culturgen is subservient to genes rather than a competitor. The idea lost favour long ago, even with EO Wilson.

[quote]I would posit that sociopaths do not have a moral code. Generalizations are always a mistake, yes?
It didn't fall out of favor, it lost it's popularity as a term and was replaced by Dawkins "Meme" terminology instead. However, it must still find some favor as what Culturgen refers to is reminiscent of what your arguing on the subject.

Culturgen - (Via Wiki) "Culturgen is a term coined in 1980 by two American scientists, the biomathematician Charles J. Lumsden and the sociobiologist E. O. Wilson[1], to denote a hypothetical 'unit' of culture, in their controversial attempt to analyse cultural evolution by using techniques borrowed from population genetics, and to infer a theory of evolution of the human mind."

Quote:I give you points, but I gotta object. Sociopathy is a disorder. Sociopathy isn't how something works, it's how it fails to work.
Perhaps so, however my reference to the sociopath was to directly refute your assertion: "But every single human has a moral code. So what one's morality is is not universal but having morality is."
Sociopathy is a disorder, however it is also an example that not every single human has a moral code, nor is having morality universal. By your own words then the Sociopaths morality isn't working. But if Morality is a meme construct, then the meme failed which refutes your other assertions.

Quote:What is not supported by your theory is the example set forth by inmates incarcerated in Prisons, sometimes for life or on death row. Most of the prison systems in the U.S. issue a King James Bible along with other materials to new inmate arrivals. Many prisoners who were not religious before incarceration, assume a religious identity once in prison. They then very often become ideal models as the counter opposite of the personality they presented upon arrival and while on the streets.
In interviews they will admit they adopted the teachings of the Christ in order to better their situation in Prison and find forgiveness for what caused them to be sentenced and then they assume the moral demeanor they believe is directly attributed to that profile afforded by a "true" Christian.
I don't think that it is not supported by what I'm saying.

I gotta admit, I'm pretty sick today. I'm having a hard time concentrating.

I'm going to say that I agree with you that people of "questionable moral character" can find guidance through Christianity or Islam and become people of "stronger moral fiber". I can dig it.

It's the if/then that I'm having an issue with.
There was no if/then factor involved in the Prisoner analogy.

Quote:You sound as if you discount peoples personal responsibility for their actions and choices and thus, the viral influence of a meme is instead responsible through genetic transmission and societal infection.
Quote:I actually wouldn't say anything like that because that's not at all how memes work.
It would appear that that's how Richard Dawkins and Richard Brodie believe they do. Virus of the Mind The New Science
of the Meme ~ Richard Brodie





Quote:Secular morality does function differently than religious morality.

In what way?
I think one has but to look to terrorist Muslims for an example. Muslims are found in virtually all cultures and area's of the world. They do not appear as one racial profile, but are an eclectic mix of races of individuals who are Muslim and yet, a highly conservative Muslim in Queens, raised in Islam since birth and adhering to the political ideology that is Islam, will codify their Moral ideal around the teachings of Islam, the Koran, the Prophet, and the Sunna. Because they believe, accept, that Islam is a way of life and not simply a belief system.
Whereas an atheist from Queens, born and raised as an atheist, will have a wholly different moral ideology regarding themselves, the world, their culture, etc...
Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 04:20 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(01-12-2010 01:01 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Green.

Quote:Well that's what it boils down to now, doesn't it?

No, it does not, that's what this particular frame boils it down to.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Nice dodge, how would you frame it then?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2010, 05:00 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
Hey, Gassy Kitten.

Quote:I think one has but to look to terrorist Muslims for an example. Muslims are found in virtually all cultures and area's of the world. They do not appear as one racial profile, but are an eclectic mix of races of individuals who are Muslim and yet, a highly conservative Muslim in Queens, raised in Islam since birth and adhering to the political ideology that is Islam, will codify their Moral ideal around the teachings of Islam, the Koran, the Prophet, and the Sunna. Because they believe, accept, that Islam is a way of life and not simply a belief system.
Whereas an atheist from Queens, born and raised as an atheist, will have a wholly different moral ideology regarding themselves, the world, their culture, etc...

So the difference in function is the environment in which they get their moral codes?

Quote:Richard Dawkins is a prolific author on the topic of atheism, as well holds a credential as a evolutionary biologist. He is not a world leader.

And one can call the idea of meme's or relicators, into question and that in no wise is tantamount to disparaging evolution.

LOL. I didn't mean he ran a country, I meant he was a world leader in the field of memetics. He is the man that invented the field.

You called memes into question because it's a theory. Evolution is a theory and it is often called into question on that basis. So yes, there is a direct link.

Quote:It didn't fall out of favor, it lost it's popularity as a term and was replaced by Dawkins "Meme" terminology instead. However, it must still find some favor as what Culturgen refers to is reminiscent of what your arguing on the subject.

Culturgen - (Via Wiki) "Culturgen is a term coined in 1980 by two American scientists, the biomathematician Charles J. Lumsden and the sociobiologist E. O. Wilson[1], to denote a hypothetical 'unit' of culture, in their controversial attempt to analyse cultural evolution by using techniques borrowed from population genetics, and to infer a theory of evolution of the human mind."

I really don't to get bogged down in this culturgen dispute but talking about culturgens as if it's a term that is interchangable with meme today is like using GRID to talk about AIDS.

A culturgen is a seperate yet similar idea to meme. The reason it fell out of favour was because it didn't hold up to observation. The culturgen was subservient to the gene but memetic theory shows that memes are their own replicator, which lines up with Dawkins' theory of universal Darwinism and that they are in competition with genes, not subservient to them. Meme theory came first and did a better job so people, including Wilson himself, abandoned the idea of the culturgen and focused on memes.

So if you want to say that it's reminiscent of what I'm talking about, go ahead, but it isn't. I'm talking about memes and memes only.

Quote:Quote:
You sound as if you discount peoples personal responsibility for their actions and choices and thus, the viral influence of a meme is instead responsible through genetic transmission and societal infection.
Quote:
I actually wouldn't say anything like that because that's not at all how memes work.
It would appear that that's how Richard Dawkins and Richard Brodie believe they do. Virus of the Mind The New Science
of the Meme ~ Richard Brodie

Firstly, genetic transmission has nothing to do with memetic transmission. Secondly, update your text books.

Quote:These ideas seem to stretch the analogy with biological viuses a bit far (and we must be very careful of such analogies), but they do remind us that replicators vary in their usefulness...

Dawkins (1993) coined the term 'virus of the mind' to apply to such memeplexes as religions and cults - which spread themselves through vast populations of people by using all kinds of clever copying tricks, and can have disastrous consequences for those infected...

This theme has been taken up in popular books on memetics, such as Richard Brodie's Virus of the Mind (1996) and Aaron Lynch's Thought Contagion (1996), both of which provide many examples of how memes spread through society and both of which emphasise the more dangerous and pernicious kinds of memes...

But if the theory of memetics is right, viruses are not the only memes, and memetics should not becoem a science of mind viruses. Inded the vast majority of memes (like the vast majority of genes) cannot be considered to be viral at all - they are the very stuff of our minds. Our memes is who we are.
-Dr. Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine," page 22.

Anyhoo, to try and steer this back to contructiveville, I'm still trying to get a grip on this:
Quote:Quote:
However, it can not be said that no one does so.

Agreed.

I still fail to see what the problem with doing so is.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Hey, Green.

Your concern was dealt with above.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2010, 11:39 AM
 
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
(03-12-2010 05:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy Kitten.


So the difference in function is the environment in which they get their moral codes?
One could argue as much, yes.

Quote:Richard Dawkins is a prolific author on the topic of atheism, as well holds a credential as a evolutionary biologist. He is not a world leader.

And one can call the idea of meme's or replicators, into question and that in no wise is tantamount to disparaging evolution.


LOL. I didn't mean he ran a country, I meant he was a world leader in the field of memetics. He is the man that invented the field.

You called memes into question because it's a theory. Evolution is a theory and it is often called into question on that basis. So yes, there is a direct link.
Well, he didn't invent it but he did expand on what was already proposed by Richard Semon (1859-1918) "...Semon’s mnemic principle was based upon how stimuli produce a "permanent record, . . . written or engraved on the irritable substance," i.e. upon cellular material energistically predisposed to such inscription (Semon 1921, p. 24)." (Source)

Quote:It didn't fall out of favor, it lost it's popularity as a term and was replaced by Dawkins "Meme" terminology instead. However, it must still find some favor as what Culturgen refers to is reminiscent of what your arguing on the subject.

Culturgen - (Via Wiki) "Culturgen is a term coined in 1980 by two American scientists, the biomathematician Charles J. Lumsden and the sociobiologist E. O. Wilson[1], to denote a hypothetical 'unit' of culture, in their controversial attempt to analyse cultural evolution by using techniques borrowed from population genetics, and to infer a theory of evolution of the human mind."

Quote:I really don't to get bogged down in this culturgen dispute but talking about culturgens as if it's a term that is interchangable with meme today is like using GRID to talk about AIDS.

A culturgen is a seperate yet similar idea to meme. The reason it fell out of favour was because it didn't hold up to observation. The culturgen was subservient to the gene but memetic theory shows that memes are their own replicator, which lines up with Dawkins' theory of universal Darwinism and that they are in competition with genes, not subservient to them. Meme theory came first and did a better job so people, including Wilson himself, abandoned the idea of the culturgen and focused on memes.
So if you want to say that it's reminiscent of what I'm talking about, go ahead, but it isn't. I'm talking about memes and memes only.

As you wish. I just go by what is written by others and that would contend something other than what you affirm about that.

Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads through Society
Aaron Lynch
New York: Basic Books, 1996, 256 pp. US$24.00 cloth. ISBN
0-465-08466-4. Basic Books, 10 E. 53 rd St., New
York, NY 10022-5299, USA.
" In his forward to The Meme Machine, Richard Dawkins
compares the spread of the word “meme” to the spread of
the Charles Lumsden and E.O. Wilson counterpart,
“culturgen.” Based on a web search for the two terms,
Dawkins concludes that the “meme” meme has replicated
like bunnies whereas culturgen is virtually sterile (5,042
occurrences of memetics vs. 20 occurrences of culturgen).
Why has the meme word won out so handily in this “Dar-
winian struggle between the two memes,” as Dawkins col-
orfully styles it? It comes down to wordcraft. “Meme” is
a euphonious monosyllable that supports a battalion of
coinages—meme splicing, meme pool, metamemes,
vaccime, memed out, and more. “Culturgen,” by con-
trast, is inelastic and not easy to hear. Besides, the au-
thors abandoned all possibility of prime time exposure by
locking “culturgen” up in equations. So “culturgen” lost
the war to control terminology.
“But wait just a minute!” I hear you cry. “That’s chest
beating about market share. What ever happened to truth?”
Truth, as the saying goes, is the first casualty of war." (Source)






Quote:Firstly, genetic transmission has nothing to do with memetic transmission. Secondly, update your text books.
I'd suggest you address that remark to the author(s) of them.

Quote:These ideas seem to stretch the analogy with biological viuses a bit far (and we must be very careful of such analogies), but they do remind us that replicators vary in their usefulness...

Dawkins (1993) coined the term 'virus of the mind' to apply to such memeplexes as religions and cults - which spread themselves through vast populations of people by using all kinds of clever copying tricks, and can have disastrous consequences for those infected...

This theme has been taken up in popular books on memetics, such as Richard Brodie's Virus of the Mind (1996) and Aaron Lynch's Thought Contagion (1996), both of which provide many examples of how memes spread through society and both of which emphasise the more dangerous and pernicious kinds of memes...

But if the theory of memetics is right, viruses are not the only memes, and memetics should not becoem a science of mind viruses. Inded the vast majority of memes (like the vast majority of genes) cannot be considered to be viral at all - they are the very stuff of our minds. Our memes is who we are.
-Dr. Susan Blackmore, "The Meme Machine," page 22.

Anyhoo, to try and steer this back to contructiveville, I'm still trying to get a grip on this:
Quote:
However, it can not be said that no one does so.

Agreed.

I still fail to see what the problem with doing so is.
No steering necessary. This has remained on point since you decided to steer it into the present direction. And I'll let you deal with failing to see the problem. I shall bow out of this dance as my legs are tired. Tongue [Image: dancing155.gif]


Quote:Words, as memes, are made or broken by virtue of their replicative power. Words that are too long or unpleasant-sounding will not be used often; those that are shorter and more mellifluous will be used more, and therefore will become more common. Ease of spelling and pronunciation are also major factors when people decide, either consciously or subconsciously, which word to use in a given context. This is why beauty is used more commonly that pulchritude, though they both mean the same thing.

The same phenomenon can be seen with the very word meme, which has a synonym culturgen that was coined at approximately the same time. As Richard Dawkins recounts in his foreword to Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine, the word meme has vastly outcompeted culturgen, probably because of the similarity between meme and gene, and all the corresponding coinages it invites (i.e., meme pool, memotype). This could also be a "self-reinforcing positive feedback effect" (p.xiv) in which the higher prevalence of meme gives it an even greater edge against the lagging culturgen. Today, a search on AltaVista yielded 11,007 results for memetic (chosen to eliminate confusion from French meme) and 30 results for culturgen.(Source)
Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2010, 07:16 PM
RE: Why do christians think they are an oppressed minority?
I'm not sure what exactly is going on here.

Is somebody trying to defend the "oppressed majority" of 2 billion people? Or what's going on? lol

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: