4 ms·

Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as delibera

by xamuel 7y ago

Thanks, I'm flattered you're interested in learning from me. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive. Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. Achieving real mind-share with someone is MUCH harder than people think. Jesus said: "If two of you on the earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." I'm fully behind your call for steelman/principle of charity, in fact, it feels serendipitous, because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them. Since you want to learn from me, one of my guiding principles is: there's far too much great material to read in a lifetime, so use the test of time to filter it. I'm currently reading the collected works of Shakespeare and finding it far more amazing than I expected. "A rose by any other name" is just one of many passages about names, self-denial, and so forth in Romeo and Juliet; to the point I'm convinced R&J is only a love story on the very surface, and has a far profounder hidden meaning. Shakespeare has passed the test of time. Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him. >Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment). >Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to Heretofore, I've been attempting to synthesize your comments and reply to them on-the-whole rather than bullet by bullet. >after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important" Again, this is like a man saying 'The ideas in Huffington Post are extremely, urgently important', because he read an article there about global warming. The "ideas contained within" are not unique to Memetics, Memetics just happens to be where you first encountered them. They've been around for thousands of years! (And as an aside, as an academic discipline, "Memetics" is just as trashy and low-brow as Huffington Post.) >This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! If you think people are laboring under illusions now, think how bad it was in the year 30 AD. Caesar was literally declaring himself a god, and enforcing it with state propaganda. THAT'S the kind of environment in which Jesus of Nazareth was spreading truth-bombs. And if Jesus hadn't done what he'd done, we'd still be enslaved by god-kings today.

mistermann 7y ago
> Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples of where you believe I've done this, as a secondary motive for engaging in these seemingly useless conversations is that I'm trying to learn how to achieve constructive conversation under a variety of circumstances. I've done my best to argue mostly in good faith, but spotting one's shortcomings (blind spots) is incredibly difficult (as you correctly point out). > because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them. It's a good question. Some possible explanations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations The first few seem off the mark, but the latter ones seem reasonable. > Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him. I happen to not be a big fan of Dawkins, but might you have fallen victim to a bit of guilt by association here? Again, the importance here is not the identification, summation, and labeling of these behaviors, it is the behaviors themselves. The quality of discourse in Western nations has been disgraceful and declining for a very long time now, but something seems to have changed recently to dramatically accelerate the decline. This is what I'm interested in. We have an overabundance of base materials and theory/philosophy to work from, but I propose that what's happening now is different. There is no shortage of online experts (armchair and otherwise) telling us "why" this is, but very few people I'm aware of who are closely studying it with a minimum of biases and preconceived notions, and doing so with their eyes wide open. >> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept. >> Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? > That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment). Ok, let's try this again then, perhaps I'm understanding your perspective better now....might you be referring to the study of memetics, limited only to the mechanisms, propogation, etc, whereas I am extending that (perhaps incorrectly) to include the "second order effects" on individuals in society, and how "memes" (spread near-instantaneously via the internet) has facilitated a massive increase in incorrect opinions (on both "sides" of the various divides) on a much broader range of topics (absent the internet, most people would have zero exposure to many of the contentious issues)? Hopefully this is getting closer, but if not this is a good lesson in how difficult it is to understand what the other person is talking about even when both parties are trying as hard as possible! I happen to be quite pleased at how this conversation seems to now be turning out. On one hand, it's very easy to view this conversation from a(!) perspective where it is clearly an utter waste of both of our time. On the other hand, I believe there is also a more abstract perspective you can view it from where it demonstrates that sometimes, patience and politeness can overcome a seemingly intractable impasse. Once again, as I'm sure you well know, we've all been taught these lessons before ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY ), but we never seem to get it through our thick skulls.

by xamuel 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> Believe it or not, I've been thinking of you as deliberately evasive. I would appreciate if you could point out some specific examples of where you believe I've done this, as a secondary motive for engaging in these seemingly useless conversations is that I'm trying to learn how to achieve constructive conversation under a variety of circumstances. I've done my best to argue mostly in good faith, but spotting one's shortcomings (blind spots) is incredibly difficult (as you correctly point out). > because I've been praying recently for the Lord to help me better love my neighbors, and those links you posted are highly relevant! Jesus said: "Do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Maybe what he meant was, don't condescendingly think of people as swine, but rather, assume the best in them. It's a good question. Some possible explanations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:6#Interpretations The first few seem off the mark, but the latter ones seem reasonable. > Dawkins hasn't, so I depriotize him. Maybe Dawkins is better than Shakespeare, but I consider that improbable because Dawkins hasn't passed the test of time yet. And if he were so great, he'd have Beatles-level fanfare. I'll read Dawkins when/if an editor asks me to peer-review one of Dawkins's papers or a paper that majorly cites him. I happen to not be a big fan of Dawkins, but might you have fallen victim to a bit of guilt by association here? Again, the importance here is not the identification, summation, and labeling of these behaviors, it is the behaviors themselves. The quality of discourse in Western nations has been disgraceful and declining for a very long time now, but something seems to have changed recently to dramatically accelerate the decline. This is what I'm interested in. We have an overabundance of base materials and theory/philosophy to work from, but I propose that what's happening now is different. There is no shortage of online experts (armchair and otherwise) telling us "why" this is, but very few people I'm aware of who are closely studying it with a minimum of biases and preconceived notions, and doing so with their eyes wide open. >> Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept. >> Do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? > That was related to MY core intent (see my prev. comment). Ok, let's try this again then, perhaps I'm understanding your perspective better now....might you be referring to the study of memetics, limited only to the mechanisms, propogation, etc, whereas I am extending that (perhaps incorrectly) to include the "second order effects" on individuals in society, and how "memes" (spread near-instantaneously via the internet) has facilitated a massive increase in incorrect opinions (on both "sides" of the various divides) on a much broader range of topics (absent the internet, most people would have zero exposure to many of the contentious issues)? Hopefully this is getting closer, but if not this is a good lesson in how difficult it is to understand what the other person is talking about even when both parties are trying as hard as possible! I happen to be quite pleased at how this conversation seems to now be turning out. On one hand, it's very easy to view this conversation from a(!) perspective where it is clearly an utter waste of both of our time. On the other hand, I believe there is also a more abstract perspective you can view it from where it demonstrates that sometimes, patience and politeness can overcome a seemingly intractable impasse. Once again, as I'm sure you well know, we've all been taught these lessons before ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsJnxlXepsY ), but we never seem to get it through our thick skulls.