[Joe Dees]
Blackmore is attempting to Buddhize memetics (it is her faith system).
It is a strategy that cannot succeed, for good reasons. The central
contention of the no-self school is that the belief that people have that
we have selves is a delusion; however, this contention gets its throat
pinched shut between the horns of a lethal dilemma. Either we possess
selves or we do not. If we possess selves, then the belief that we do is
no delusion; OTOH, if we do not possess selves, then there is no self to
be deluded, hence also no delusion, for delusion, to exist, requires a
deludee.
[rhinoceros]
I would find it more fair if one did a linguistic analysis of what Blackmore meant when she used the terms "we" and "being deluded" under the assumption that there is not a "self", and then proceeded to see whether any contradictions arise. Otherwise, she might counter that in her "self-less" conceptual framework even a machine can be said to be "deluded", and that we wrongly used a deluded concept of delusion associated with "self" in order to inject an antinomy into her theory.
On the other hand, if we find out empirically, for example, that ideas obtained by participation in an action (which ideas she does not consider to be memes) play a significant part in our identity and behavior, then we can say that there is more than replicator memes in a person.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26133>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT