>"The Metameme" with a capital M. I could go for that. Does anyone
>else
>have any thoughts on this subject?
No.
>As I noted previously, there's not enough dissagreement on the
>'regulation
>of memetic material' to sustain a spirited thread. We seem to agree
>that
>'fire-wall' regulation is ineffective (and I would add that it is
>counter-productive and immoral).
I do not agree with this. Censorship of cigarette ads in the US has
directly resulted in drastically lower smoking rates here while they are
increasing in countries with new cigarette advertising.
> 'Node-level' regulation is feasible and
>amounts to each person taking responsibility for examining their
>beliefs
>not only in terms of the practical benefits which accrue from those
>beliefs, but in terms of thier source, internal consistancy and
>aggreement
>with other beliefs.
But Kevin, can you really believe that the masses will ever be
enlightened, committed, or interested enough to make that work?
>It's also very important that our node-level metametic
>filters initiate a query as to whose ends would be advanced were the
>system
>to accept some incoming meme. 'Node-level' regulation of memetic
>material
>amounts to indivuals taking responsibility for beleiving responsibly.
>
>Maybe I've said something controversial. I hope so. It seems a shame
>that
>it takes conflict to get people to really examine the consistency of
>their
>mental models and expend considerable effort to articulate their
>beliefs
>clearly. (sigh)
Remember, most people do not think nearly as abstractly or logically as
you do. Other means are necessary to educate people about memetics.
>
>Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
>CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
>Do you know what a "meme" is?
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>