At Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:11:04 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Joe E. Dees
>>
>>I'm just poking a few sacred cows, and seeing which bulls come to
>>defend their territory;~).
>
>So, that would be "an exercise"? Your reply indicates that you don't
>have any strong feelings one way or the other, but are just sort of
>seeing what will happen. That's fine. I just need to understand what
>your intent is.
My intent is to find out for whom memetics has become a cult, and who refuse to hold it amenable to rational criticism; who are the rabid Brodiest MemeNazis, if you will. Are you raising your hand?
>>But seriously, the question (which you elided with your counter-
>>question) remains. If level 3 can be reasonably described in
>>this manner, why shouldn't it be?
>
>I'm not eluding the question. I can't answer it generally because, from
>my perspective, there is no general answer. The answer would
>depend on the context. If you believe that this is the most accurate
>way of describing level 3, then you should describe it thus, and
>use as much effort as you feel neccesary to defend your position.
The word was elided (which means much the same as eluded, so you got my drift ok).
>I don't see any reason in picking a fight with you about it, though.
>You don't seem to really believe what you are saying.
>>Is or is not level 3 (a memeset of which I still have not conceded
>>acceptance) amenable to, or even facilitative of, sociopatic abuse?
>
>As is science. Have you heard of the "Manhattan Project"? Great
>achievement..horrible massacre..terrible, endemic fear of total
>annihilation. As favorite musician, Ani DiFranco, says:
>
>"Every tool is a weapon, if you hold it right."
>It's a dillema of power, Joe. If I give you the power, will you
>use it for good? I depend on your human nature to overcome
>your ideology.
Or perhaps our ideologies to overcome our sometines social but mainly egocentric natures? You may assume more confidently (but not flawlessly) about human nature in general than about my ideolofy, of which you know little if anything, in particular.
>>Maybe it IS bad; is a discussion of that possibility taboo on this list?
>
>Nope. Do you think it IS bad? What experience has lead you to
>this belief?
As above, it all depends upon the intents of the practitioner and the practiced-upon, and the personal history of each person on this list will most likely bear this out (a most likely true observation concerning general human nature; see how easy it is?).
>>Is it indeed the penultimate politician's modus operandi?
>
>Do you mean: "don't all politicians bullshit like you are?"
>What do you think? To me, it's true in a sense. Do you think
>politicans are bad?
Some are, some aren't (see above); it depends upon whether , when self-serving and constituent-serving ends are in conflict, which they choose to pursue.
>>It's a fair question. Try answering it this time, hokay?
>
>Was that OK, or were you looking for something else?
>I'm trying. [shrug]
>Reed
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher