Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In so far as memes are valued or devalued (i.e. "fit" to survive or not so), god memes, self interest, and many others, play into emotions, yet are masked by our inability to be precise about emotions.  From another list:

Most people live in an assumptive world much of which is fallacious. Emotion researchers, in part, share some of this world. The popular defenses against understanding emotions can be listed as: 1. Ignore in favor of behavior, thought, perception, etc. 2. Generalize: when referring to emotions, avoid naming particular emotions in favor of abstract terms: emotions, affect, arousal, etc. 3. Disguise: use one of the vast number of words or phrases that avoid the specific name, such as feeling “hot under the collar,” “awkward” or “rejected” instead of using the term anger, embarrassment or the s-word itself. 4. Confuse: The final line of defense is that most vernacular words that refer to specific emotions are wildly ambiguous and/or mask one emotion with another, especially in English. A preliminary approach is offered for naming and defining love, grief, fear, anger, shame and pride.

These emotion words mask self interest very well, and make it hard to construct my long sought self interest ontology. 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:29 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

JMcC

> Now on to the god meme. How radioactive.

> You state that the god meme is the "popular

> conception of the god(s). That IS about whether higher entities exist

> and about their features" ... ok let's run with that. Let's think about

> how this meme came about.

The so-called "god meme" is not innate, but it arises in every

(or nearly every) human society by a very simple mechanism.

> Did individual persons develop this belief on their own, assigning

> reality to something they could neither see nor touch? If yes,

> then I'd agree that a meme is an emergent consensus of sorts.

> Or was it something they were TOLD by intellectuals seeking to

> create a caste of wizards, medicine-men, and priests?

Option #1 is the correct answer, but the beliefs are based on very

tangible, but dimly remembered phenomena and experiences:

  1. Every child is born as a helpless infant into a family with

     very powerful god and goddess figures:  protectors, care givers,

     law givers, and law enforcers who deliver swift and sure penalties.

  2. Some families have only one or two children, but most people are

     born into larger families -- for simple statistical reasons.

  3. Each child identifies with the much weaker siblings close to his

     or her age, who are all dependent on and governed by the older

     wiser, wealthier, and much more powerful god(s) & goddess(es).

  4. The pair of all powerful figures turn out to be good old mom

     & pop, whom the child reveres, but the teenager rebels against.

  5. But even as an adult, people have a nostalgia for a simpler and

     more secure "golden age" when the all-knowing, all-powerful god

     & goddess provided the child with all good things.

There is a huge literature about mythologies around the world, and

their psychological, psychoanalytic, sociological, literary, and

linguistic implications.

If Dawkins seriously wanted to study the "god meme", he should have

done his homework before popping off with some half-baked opinions.

For anybody who wants to study the god meme, my recommendation is to

start with gods such as Zeus or Wotan and goddesses such as Demeter

or Venus.  Very few people worship them today, but they have influenced

many centuries of literature -- and very similar themes and plots occur

in modern literature and movies.

It's possible to formulate and discuss hypotheses about them

with more insight and less heated polemics.

John

 

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 

Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 

Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

 

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)