Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Jason said:
What the Buddha taught (the raft, meme, or whatever you want to call it) leads the mind to dispassion and letting go, to freeing one's mind from the conceptual proliferations and habits of self-identification (the process of I-making and my-making, the self meme, or whatever you want to call it) that give rise to stress and suffering.
This is all well and good but it is not describing a so called "anti-meme." It is only describing competing memes.
Anti means opposed to. How would an anti-gene gene express itself? Maybe like a virus that literally, and indiscriminately, unravels genetic coding. But such a mutation could not last long enough to have much effect, because it could not live and reproduce itself.
In this sense, they're undone, the mind becomes unbound, and 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.'
This does not appear to be true. As I've mentioned, the Buddha, who was enlightened, taught and propagated the memeplex. His task was not done. The memeplex was not done. And presumably he taught for the sake of sentient beings.
Earlier you wrote something about an enlightened being not being attached to a memeplex. Okay, I not particularly attached to many of my genes either, yet they live inside me and may be passed on. Not being attached to something doesn't mean that you've "undone" it.
The Dharma as a raft (i.e., teachings) is one thing, and can be seen as a meme. The realization that the Dharma leads to, however, isn't the raft and beyond conceptualization. Kind of like the old Zen saying, Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.
No one is saying that the memeplex in question doesn't serve a purpose or have an effect. I'm saying that it is not an anti-meme, simply.
Professor Dawkins is a meme personified. Self-selective and perpetuating because of his view.
I was really taken in by his writings when I was younger, because I had not developed mind immunity, now my own developed ideas eradicate his with impunity.
However, I don't want anyone else to become infected with my dis-ease. lol
@anataman said:
nihilism is also a meme - but is self destructive!
Actually nihilism might be the closest thing to the so called language bending "anti-meme." Of course that is not to say that religious memes can't be destructive to their hosts. History is replete with examples of that.
@Nevermind said:
This is all well and good but it is not describing a so called "anti-meme." It is only describing competing memes.
>
Anti means opposed to. How would an anti-gene gene express itself? Maybe like a virus that literally, and indiscriminately, unravels genetic coding. But such a mutation could not last long enough to have much effect, because it could not live and reproduce itself.
I suppose it all depends on how you approach the subject, as well as how you define the terms in question. For one, we're not talking about genes here, we're talking about views, ideas, and notions, i.e., information patterns that self-replicate within our minds and can be passed on to others.
Nevertheless, to use your phrasing above, for example, I'd say that the Dharma, in the sense of the teachings, is like a memeplex that unravels the proverbial genetic coding of the selfplex—a term coined by Blackmore meaning a 'self' or construction comprising a collection of memetic narratives, but which can also be applied to the 'I am' conceit (asmi-mana) arising from the meme-making of the five clinging-aggregates (e.g., see Memes: The idea of samsaric genes, pp 35-37).
For other types of memes, however, it may be more appropriate to say that the Dharma, when used correctly, can act as an inoculation against them, e.g., by helping us understand how they operate and mentally proliferate, as well as by giving us tools to help guard ourselves against them, etc.
It may be that this is only true (if at all) in regard to certain memes, memeplexes, or what have you; but taking into consideration some of what Piay Tan wrote in Memes: The idea of samsaric genes re: memes and the role of the five-aggregates, I think the liberation from memes may be best understand by Bhikkhu Nanananda's summation of the liberated mind:
Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant [i.e., literally 'noble one,' a term denoting a person whose mind is free of defilement]. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.
We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness.[ix] A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.
In essence, they're no longer able to self-replicate in the mind of one liberated due to non-clinging, or else they are 'seen' through or relinquished. This, incidentally, brings to mind Nagarjuna's logic of emptiness as presented in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, which itself was directed towards the removal of clinging, especially clinging to views (memes?).
Of course, this may not entirely accord with how memetics is generally understood; but then, I'm simply utilizing these concepts in allegorical fashion for the purpose of comparison and discussion to see what comes out of it, not because I think it's a perfect analogy/comparison and it has no flaws.
Comments
This is all well and good but it is not describing a so called "anti-meme." It is only describing competing memes.
Anti means opposed to. How would an anti-gene gene express itself? Maybe like a virus that literally, and indiscriminately, unravels genetic coding. But such a mutation could not last long enough to have much effect, because it could not live and reproduce itself.
This does not appear to be true. As I've mentioned, the Buddha, who was enlightened, taught and propagated the memeplex. His task was not done. The memeplex was not done. And presumably he taught for the sake of sentient beings.
Earlier you wrote something about an enlightened being not being attached to a memeplex. Okay, I not particularly attached to many of my genes either, yet they live inside me and may be passed on. Not being attached to something doesn't mean that you've "undone" it.
No one is saying that the memeplex in question doesn't serve a purpose or have an effect. I'm saying that it is not an anti-meme, simply.
So stop fixating on the 'anti' meme and find another way of expressing it which is easier for you.
Some people enjoy bending language, others are made uncomfortable.
There is no stone tablet of meme definitions.
No one is binding you.
Professor Dawkins will not consider you a heretic.
I would say mandala rather than meme. Buddhism puts awareness/knowing as the central mandala.
Professor Dawkins is a meme personified. Self-selective and perpetuating because of his view.
I was really taken in by his writings when I was younger, because I had not developed mind immunity, now my own developed ideas eradicate his with impunity.
However, I don't want anyone else to become infected with my dis-ease. lol
Actually nihilism might be the closest thing to the so called language bending "anti-meme." Of course that is not to say that religious memes can't be destructive to their hosts. History is replete with examples of that.
Yup... you still don't get it...I find myself with a kind of grudging admiration of your dogged ignorance.
Your "language bending" skills? I got that long long before this topic, dear old friend.
>
I suppose it all depends on how you approach the subject, as well as how you define the terms in question. For one, we're not talking about genes here, we're talking about views, ideas, and notions, i.e., information patterns that self-replicate within our minds and can be passed on to others.
Nevertheless, to use your phrasing above, for example, I'd say that the Dharma, in the sense of the teachings, is like a memeplex that unravels the proverbial genetic coding of the selfplex—a term coined by Blackmore meaning a 'self' or construction comprising a collection of memetic narratives, but which can also be applied to the 'I am' conceit (asmi-mana) arising from the meme-making of the five clinging-aggregates (e.g., see Memes: The idea of samsaric genes, pp 35-37).
For other types of memes, however, it may be more appropriate to say that the Dharma, when used correctly, can act as an inoculation against them, e.g., by helping us understand how they operate and mentally proliferate, as well as by giving us tools to help guard ourselves against them, etc.
It may be that this is only true (if at all) in regard to certain memes, memeplexes, or what have you; but taking into consideration some of what Piay Tan wrote in Memes: The idea of samsaric genes re: memes and the role of the five-aggregates, I think the liberation from memes may be best understand by Bhikkhu Nanananda's summation of the liberated mind:
In essence, they're no longer able to self-replicate in the mind of one liberated due to non-clinging, or else they are 'seen' through or relinquished. This, incidentally, brings to mind Nagarjuna's logic of emptiness as presented in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, which itself was directed towards the removal of clinging, especially clinging to views (memes?).
Of course, this may not entirely accord with how memetics is generally understood; but then, I'm simply utilizing these concepts in allegorical fashion for the purpose of comparison and discussion to see what comes out of it, not because I think it's a perfect analogy/comparison and it has no flaws.