> I too am VERY fond of the freedom meme, I think that so far, as you describe it, it
> may be my favorite. I also like your descripion of it, and its similarity to the
> anarchy meme, which is basically the freedom meme, minus the limitation of affecting
> the freedom of others. I also think that Capitalism and Democracy are preferable to
> most other systems so far exhibited (that come from the freedom meme), but show very
> serious flaws. In a democracy, it is too easy and common for small majority to
> oppress any minority. And Capitalism, though it has been very beneficial for me,
> leads to a type of human abuse that I do not like either. I would love to see a
> democracy that needs a 80% or so vote to make any law and a 30% or so to remove any
> law. I would liuke to see capitalism in which its main beneficiaries saw life as
> more important than profit. Then those two systems would be acceptable to me.
>
> Also, could you define "Godelianly" for me? I honestly dont know what that means.
>
> Sodom
> Bill Roh
>
> Kurt Godel authored the most seminal proof in mathematics. He
proved that any axiomatic system of sufficient complexity to be
recursive is necessarily either partially incorrect or
incomplete.Heres how he did it:
First, postulate axiomatic system A, comprised of all and only true
statements. Now, from the laws and structure of A, create statement
B, a recursive statement (it talks about itself). B says, in effect,
that "B is not a part of A". What has happened? If we include B in
A, then A contains at least one false statement, but if we exclude B
from A, then there is a true statement that A does not contain. The
bottom falls out; mathematics is revealed as a Zen koan. But WE are
B, neither seamlessly and unconsciously part of the world, nor so
Godlike self-aware and self-absorbed as to be completely bifurcated
from it. We inhabit an ego-epistemology trapped between egoless
awareness of nothing and egoless awareness of all. The snake bites
his tail, but cannot swallow his own head. In Ideal terms, there
would be an absolute evolution of consciousness; 1->2->infinity. The
proof: If one is self-aware, one is conscious of the fact (if 2 then
3). But if one is aware of one's own self-consciousness, one must
know of this awareness, too ( if 3 then 4), and in general, if N then
N+1. However, although the size and complsxity of the human
synapse-neuron system transcends the Godelian limit (beyond which
recursivity and self-reflection occurs), in practical terms, since
the human brain is not of infinite complexity, we may inhabit a
finite (although indefinite) number of levels of abstraction, beyond
which we become lost in sterile irrelevancy. The best presentation
of the open-ended system of human cognition has been put forth by
Jean Piaget.
On another matter, one innovation peculiar to democracy is its
state of continual evolution, which precludes revolution. Utopia is
a never-to-be-obtained ideal limit; thus there will always be some
dissatisfaction with our government and its laws. However, before
this dissatisfaction can reach the dystopic level necessary for
revolution, lawmakers, motivated by election considerations, revise
the offebding laws. Like human individuals, participatour democracy
is an open-ended, reflexive, evolutionary and autopoetic system.
I hope this has helped to answer your questions and to clarify my
points further.
Sincerely,
Joe Dees
>
> > > Subject: virus: Bequest
> > > Date: Thu, 21 May 98 18:11:35 -0400
> > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <morbius@channel1.com>
> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > >So the meme you are worried about is not anti-butchery, or
> > > >anti-communist, it is the [we-are-the-chosen-people] meme - [insert
> > > cult/country/religion]
> > > >are right, all others are by default, wrong. Thats the best thing about being
> > > an
> > > >[insert cult/country/religion], you are always on the morally correct side -
> > > YES!
> > >
> > > Yes?
> > >
> > > And, Bill, you _really_ should be living in Cambridge....
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > > The nice thing about a "freedom meme" is its anti-dogmatic, almost
> > scientfically non-judgmental, morally/ethically neutral character.
> > It doesn't prescribe what you must do with your freedom or proscribe
> > what you mustn't do with it (this is tautologically the nature of
> > freedom, by definition), it merely states that each individual should
> > have all freedoms that do not interfere with the same freedoms
> > exercised by anyone else, and where the inevitable conflicts occur,
> > they should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise. It
> > wears no altruistic blinders, however; the reason it is embraced is
> > the benefit it grants immediately to the individual, and only
> > subsequently (and mediately) to the society. It is a formal meme,
> > with negligible content, and is well suited to permeate the
> > emergently self-conscious, recursive psyche, which is programmed to
> > transcend its programming; in other words, programmed for freedom. I
> > am not worried about the freedom meme - I LIKE it, and the
> > evolutionarily creative diversity of thought and action it fosters.
> > It tolerates everything - except intolerance, and makes everyone
> > slaves - to their own free wills and choices (though it insists on
> > personal responsibility for their consequences, which is fine with
> > me). Like a free market and laissez-faire economics, it is a
> > synthesis of existentialism and ethical egotism, and works best
> > (though not perfectly, or even perfectibly - the nature of
> > open-ended, recursive systems is to be Godelianly imperfect and
> > incomplete) hand-in-glove with participatory democracy.
> > >
> > > *****************
> > > Wade T. Smith
> > > morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
> > > wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
> > > morbius@cyberwarped.com |
> > > ******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******
> > >
>
>
>