Welcome to The Beast Bay General Thelema Science Art Scholarship The Beast Bay website
 up a level
 search
 main


  Eumemics?
General Thelema Posted by Xnoubis on May 10, 2001 @ 03:18 PM
from the viral-dance dept.

The term "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," an attempt to explore the realm of ideas along the lines of genes in biology. Memetics, then, is "the study of memes and their social effects" (Grant, 1990).

I'd never felt the need to study memetics until I'd seen the role that it's come to play in Spiral Dynamics. And then when the subject of eugenics came up in a recent Beast Bay thread, it started me speculating about the potential of the imaginary discipline of "eumemics." While memetics is concerned with the study of memes, eumemics would be the attempt to improve the set of memes operating within the culture.


I think that it's safe to say that for most people (certain distinguished Beast Bay contributors excepted), "eugenics" is a dirty word. Probably the most unsavory aspect of it is the idea of the use of coercion to weed out undesirable genetic traits. This objection might not apply to eumemics for two reasons. First of all, it's usually more effective to let bad ideas die out on their own than to call attention to them by fighting them. Secondly, I would assert that the suppression of undesirable ideas is itself an undesirable idea.

(Nonetheless, since eumemics is a play on the widely-despised term "eugenics," its potential as a meme is virtually nil. I think it's useful for my present purposes, though.)

This of course brings up the issue of what is desirable. While people are going to have different opinions about this, I think we might be able to speak of at least two general considerations in this regard.

The first is tolerance, or respecting the diversity of values. This means, for example, that those pursuing one set of values shouldn't prevent others from pursuing their values, to as great an extent as possible.

A second consideration is the value of sustainability. While it is essential to the preservation of the system that sustainability is pursued and realized, the upholding of this value is not so essential a duty for each individual as is tolerance. That is to say, each of us has a responsibility to respect the freedom of others, whereas sustainability is required of the collective, but not necessarily each individual within it.

Beyond that, the field of values is completely up to the individual. Given that, like-minded people will sometimes associate in groups for the fulfillment and promotion of their values. All this provides a framework for us to explore how we could apply the idea of eumemics to Thelema.

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that there is a distinction between the propagation of Thelema as a meme and the propagation of memes consistent with Thelemic values.

Concerning the former: many Thelemites (myself included) don't want to see everyone become a member of the Thelemic cult. For us, that's not what Thelema is about. This is in contrast to the typical Christian worldview, in which being a Christian implies hoping that everyone will eventually become a Christian.

Thelemites might better be compared to Shakespeare enthusiasts. Shakespeareans don't want the widest distribution of Shakespeare (TV dramas, T-shirts, cocktail napkins, etc.), they want the best. Similarly, the best possible Thelema isn't necessarily the one with the greatest numbers.

At the same time, Thelema does seek universal freedom. This, I think, would form the primary direction of a Thelemic eumemics.

This train of thought leads me to the curious conclusion that the propagation of the meme of Thelema is probably not the most effective way of influencing the meme-pool in accordance with Thelemic values. The Thelemic meme is effective for that small slice of society drawn to it, but its antinomianism, complexity, and religiosity (to name but a few factors) make it a less than ideal vehicle for influencing the culture as a whole.

Since I've only just started considering other ways in which we might generate cultural influences conducive to the establishment of universal freedom, I'd be interested in hearing the views of others on the subject.



<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on General Thelema
  • Also by Xnoubis
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    Re: Eumemics?
    by Jon Auviere on Friday May 11, @12:48PM
    It has occured to me recently how much of Thelema is composed within the motto: "Method of Science, Aim of Religion."

    If we disected the components of Science we'd find an office that is readily corrupted by the given individual. Science never results in absolute facts, but at the same time it has encouraged the most memes both (exo)toxic and beneficial. Religion has done the same, although it would suffice to say that by its popularity has profaned itself.

    Where Thelema supposedly differs from the above, is in its magical teachings. So far as it is judged as primarily spiritual and not poilitical, the individual alone cannot effectively profane or destroy it. For the foundation has already been deeply engraved.

    The only perversion of Thelema therefore seems to be selfishness, 'shutting up of one's self'. Is it not written,

    8. He shall everywhere proclaim openly his connection with the A.'. A.'. and speak of It and Its principles (even so little as he
    understandeth) for that mystery is the enemy of Truth.

    --LIBER COLLEGII SANCTI

    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Mordecai Shapiro on Friday May 11, @12:59PM
      >It has occured to me recently how much of Thelema is composed within the motto: "Method of
      >Science, Aim of Religion."

      In my experience I find that most Thelemites seem to actually be operating by the schema "Aim of Science, Method of Religion", that is, they want mundane, mainly material, benefits and well-being, which is what science and technology usually aim at, but they want to employ religious means (i.e., prayer, ritual, meditation, etc.) to achieve it.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by Jon Auviere on Friday May 11, @02:32PM
        Of course, Thelema's Founder could be accused of the same. O;) I don't find much wrong with that either...but consider the alternatives.

        And as check to materialism, common sense would be of quick use to weed out the posers.

        I'm speaking mainly of Thelema however, not its temporary embodiments (OTO, or AA, for instance), which might never be brought to justice.


    Re: Eumemics?
    by Tim Maroney on Friday May 11, @03:49PM
    While in many ways Richard Dawkins is an admirable evolutionary biologist, essayist, and popular writer, his psychological models tend to be absurdly oversimplified. The idea of the "meme" is one of these. A gene's reproduction is a physical fact. It's binary data that binds with complementary binary data or not. You can meaure it in tubs by seeing how much DNA strands stick together, or by multi-generational sequencing.

    A meme's replication is not like this at all. There is no such thing as meme replication without mutation, and the mutation is on a massive scale. No idea appears the same in any two people's minds.

    The only measurable effect of this spurported replication is a loose consensual illusion of synchrony by which we agree subjectively that certain very different behaviors and utterances mean "the same thing." In fact, many people who appear to be talking about the same thing have enormous differences in their viewpoints, some expressed and some not. Even in the most dogmatic faiths there is too much difference in personal emphasis and interpretation to make authority comfortable. The sloganeering of such authoritarian systems is an attempt to enforce the replication of the meme of the slogan, but this is only effective in creating the same speech, not the same thought.

    The genome is a shared digital language, but the mind has or is a different language in every one of its instantiations or incarnations. The meme model fails to take into account the untranslatability of these renderings in such different languages. Genes and memes are particles, but there are no particles of thought. Thought is contextual -- it lives as a set of complex, dynamic, parallel patterns of a deep structure. There is no Thelema meme, no Christianity meme, only a broad variety of engagements with these topics, and a sort of diffuse wave of causality and distorted reflection rolling across discourse and cognition.

    This is critical to my own understanding of being a Thelemite: that the word itself means something completely different to each person who uses it, either of themselves or others.

    Tim

    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Mordecai Shapiro on Friday May 11, @04:49PM
      >The genome is a shared digital language, but the mind has or is a different language
      >in every one of its instantiations or incarnations

      This is an important point. The French linguist Saussere made a distinction between three different "languages": the language in the prescriptive sense of society's accepted grammar and usage, the language which the community actually speaks, and the individual language (parole) specific to each member of the community. Without being aware of and accounting for the differences between these, meaningful communication is difficult if not impossible.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by Jon Auviere on Friday May 11, @05:26PM
        >The genome is a shared digital language,

        It turns out that even the genome was a meme, with its own bait and all! You ought to check up on this--what the scientists thought they knew of the gene/genome system turned out to be the exact opposite. The 50 year old theory of "one gene, one protein" is false. Though this did not stop all those from believing it, thus wasting billions of dollars, creating false hopes, and swindling even now for more money. Truth is the genome isn't really a language at all, and the irony is that scientists should have already figured that out from the 80's when certain genes were mapped and yet no new cures for the corresponding diseases ever appeared.

        Besides, Tim, I think you're missing the point missing the point behind memes entirely. A simple look out the window seems to confer the truth behind this system.


    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Xnoubis on Sunday May 13, @11:54AM
      I think that the implied parallel between meme and gene is only intended as suggestive, not as a metaphor that can be extended very far. The question is whether anything suggested by the parallel is useful. I'm still exploring that issue at this point. It seems possible to me that it could be useful to examine the factors of how cultural manifestations spread. Could we learn how to reduce the spread of harmful manifestations, or how to encourage manifestations that supported compassion and wholeness, for instance? In some ways, these are considerations that cut across existing disciplines like psychology, sociology, marketing, ethics, religion, politics, and the arts. One of the possible virtues I could see in memetics is as a way of tracing a thread through the relevent portions of each of those many fields.

      This debate on HotWired was recommended in on one web site as a solid victory for meme-advocacy. I don't agree; the anti-meme fellow completely misunderstood what his counterpart was saying, but the memeticist shamelessly mugged for the crowd, coming across like Camille Paglia with even less charm. But I found a discussion about the debate on a meme-related mailing list that did a better job, particularly here and here.

      (That elist lead me to the delightful Church of Virus, an independent attempt at a kind of eumemics from an atheist/agnostic perspective. They have an expanded version of the memetics lexicon I linked to in the article, with many interesting additions. But they seem way off on matters of mysticism, to my woolly-headed way of thinking, anyway.)

      As far as different behaviors meaning the same thing, I think that memes are supposed to be repeating behaviors, regardless of their internal meaning. I may have spoken too loosely when I referred them to the "realm of ideas." The KJV of the Lord's Prayer may mean something different to me than to Ben Johnson, but the words are the same, and so could be considered to be a meme as it's recited and learned. To the extent that all translations of the Lord's Prayer have certain elements in common, I think they all could be considered as a meme in a looser sense.

      Similarly, Thelema may mean different things for everyone, but to the extent that behaviors such as reading Liber AL, performing Resh, saying "93," accomplishing Liber 8, etc., are duplicated, there is a Thelemic meme-complex that can be studied.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by Mordecai on Sunday May 13, @04:55PM
        I've been pondering the question of the meme and its metaphors. The gene is clearly inappropriate, the way memes propagate, mutate, and connubate, are very dissimilar to genes. Virus seems better, at least for propagation, but it still doesn't capture the radical freedom with which cultural units can be tweaked by individuals. Right now I'm leaning toward molecules as the best metaphor.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by Tim Maroney on Tuesday May 15, @09:47PM
        Thanks for the references, although I've only read the Lynch/Barbrook exchange.

        Aaron Lynch really did not do well for himself in that debate. It seemed to me that he was fixated in the same kind of fifties lab-coat naive anti-religionism which bids a firm pshaw to all this hooey about religion having one of its primary existences as a set of social constructs. Instead, a notion of religion as outmoded as Christian literalism or the use of 777 as a guide to world mythology is insisted upon. We are asked to accept that a religion is made up of beliefs, which by today's lights would seem a peculiar and backward perspective. Lynch cannot be led to take even a step toward the social functions of religion by the patient Barbrook.

        Lynch claims that the meme is a pardigm shift. However, the meme or memetics is not a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift is a social process which has not happened in this case. Memetics remains a fringe, science-fictiony, 1996-Wired, 1988-Whole-Earth-Review approach to psychology which is not only uninformed by, but unaware of, the existing questions in relevant fields. For there to be a paradigm shift as defined by Kuhn, memetics would have to explain currently anomalous observations as well as those which are adequately modeled under current theories. Because it is so disconnected from those theories it does not do that -- it does not provide what it would take to cause the shift. Consequently, one would search the textbooks and journals in vain looking for this purported paradigm shift. There is at most an occasional, minor and recent presence.

        Lynch states it well enough:

        Memetics relies only on very fundamental principles: the axiom of abstraction, by which we say that two people can have "the same" idea and the notion of causation, allowing for one person's ideas to influence another's.


        Unfortunately, on the question of what he calls abstraction the whole thing founders. This is the simplistic assumption where the analogy ceases to be helpful and becomes misleading. Two people can not have the same idea. However, they can easily assert that they have the same idea. This is a social act. It has numerous functions and meanings. They are all more than the sum of the whole of their parts, and they all constantly change and evolves in a social and individual matrix.

        "Belief" is not really what this is about, and in fact belief is a concept that itself has been very difficult to pin down in psychology or philosophy. It seems likely that "belief" is a folk psychology concept that has no real applicability to how the human psyche operates. It also seems that the attempt historically made in certain Western religious organizations, to define ideology by belief, is a failed attempt.

        Similarity is overplayed and the effects of translation in communication are underplayed in the meme theory. A gene really is kind of like a roll of computer tape. An idea isn't like that. A gene gets copied accurately with a low mutation rate and lives for millennia or more in the usual case; an idea is distorted and reborn at almost every step of transmission, is not stable even within a single mind, and could not even in principle be copied accurately.

        Nor is a religion a collection of statements about belief in a dusty book, however much simplistic secular critiques may try to reduce it to such. This misguided critique is based on taking Christian apologetics on their own terms. I do admire Dawkins in his area, biology, but when it comes to religion, he and Lynch are the type of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry contributors who often have this subscriber scratching his head. I have seen Dawkins say in Free Inquiry that religious visions are indistinguishable from the delusions of people imagining themselves to be Napoleon and should be treated with the same disdain.

        Most of my own understanding of how religion, ritual and meditation works has come from the soft sciences, from neurology, and from philosophy. I have no doubt that brushing them aside as this misinformed and misleading biological metaphor would have us do would be a great loss.

        Fortunately, the meme is a fad that seems to have no chance of becoming a significant influence on the disciplines it seeks to displace. (If it's even still a fad, then so is Howard Rheingold!) Of course, there is still the possibility that it could explain some anomaly and find a home for itself within the serious theory of the human psyche.

        Behaviors are not ideas. The issue of imitation of behavior is largely irrelevant to the question of inner (psychological) representation and reference. It's a significant issue in its own right but it doesn't speak much to the issue at hand. There are powerful social and developmental forces leading people to these imitative behaviors, but it does not follow from that there is some shared inner code of instructions behind the repetitive pattern.

        If one observes for a long time what people who are ostensibly of the same belief system say about those beliefs, one finds that they are all saying very different things, not only from each other but from themselves at different times and in different situations. Different inner representations are being given an ilusion of sameness.

        Belief is a failed psychological category. There is no Thelema-meme and no Thelema-idea. There are many different ideas about the subject of Crowley's life and work.

        Tim


        • Re: Eumemics?
          by Jon Auviere on Wednesday May 16, @05:32AM
          >Behaviors are not ideas.

          I would have to hotly disagree.


          • Re: Eumemics?
            by Mordecai Shapiro on Wednesday May 16, @10:16AM
            Have you ever been burned by the idea of playing with fire?

            :-)


            • Re: Eumemics?
              by Jon Auviere on Wednesday May 16, @10:32AM
              >Have you ever been burned by the idea of playing with fire?

              Oh, dear! That is such an extreme example, but in many a sense I would have to say "Hell yes!"

              (p.s., you may be on to something here Mordecai!)


        • Re: Eumemics?
          by Xnoubis on Wednesday May 16, @11:38AM
          I've just read a bit of the material on Lynch's website. Interestingly, he seems to have cooled to the term "meme" (now preferring "thought contagion") because of how imprecisely it's been defined by Dawkins and his pals. Dawkins thinks of memetics as a perspective or metaphor. For Lynch, it is a mode of causal analysis. He doesn't seem to find the parallel to genetics helpful either.

          He goes into the principle of abstraction in more detail in his 1998 paper, "Units, Events, and Dynamics in Memetic Evolution":
          Most people use abstract representations of memory content on a daily basis to discuss ideas. When we say that two people have "the same" idea, we do not use "sameness" to mean equality in every concrete detail, or else we could never correctly say that two people have "the same" idea. As Dawkins put it, "If this were not so, then almost any statement about two people agreeing with each other would be meaningless." What we mean by saying that two people have "the same" idea is that one person's idea has at very least one quality in common with the other's idea. Perceiving two people to have "the same" idea involves abstracting out a set of common qualities. So saying that two people's ideas are "the same" only means that they are in some way "of the same kind."

          This ability to say that two people have the same idea lies at the foundation of the notion of a "replicating idea." When an idea "replicates," it acts to produce or preserve ideas that we call "the same idea." The resultant ideas can for now be called "self-replicated" ideas. To be a self-replicated idea means not only to have resulted from a given idea, but also to be "the same" as that idea. Specifically, it means meeting some abstract, observer-defined criterion for sameness.


          This is all somewhat beside the point for me, since I'm interested in the imprecise "perspective" view apparently advocated by Dawkins to the annoyance of Lynch.

          > Behaviors are not ideas. The issue of imitation
          > of behavior is largely irrelevant to the
          > question of inner (psychological)
          > representation and reference. It's a
          > significant issue in its own right but it
          > doesn't speak much to the issue at hand.

          I think that it is the issue at hand for me.

          > There are powerful social and developmental
          > forces leading people to these imitative
          > behaviors, but it does not follow from that
          > there is some shared inner code of instructions
          > behind the repetitive pattern.

          Shared inner code or not, can we understand those forces currently in play? Can they be channelled? Do we channel them now without entirely recognizing it? Would we do well to channel them in other ways, or possibly diminish them? How are others channelling them, knowingly or unknowingly? I think that these questions more nearly approach what I'm getting at.


        • Re: Eumemics?
          by Mordecai Shapiro on Wednesday May 16, @12:48PM
          >Behaviors are not ideas.

          Perhaps this misconception results from the idea that behaviors require expression in action. However, perusal of the OED definition makes it clear that demeanor, appearance, etc. may be included in the sense of the word, and while not all behaviors reflect an idea, I would contend that all ideas are themselves a form of behavior.


          • Re: Eumemics?
            by Mordecai Shapiro on Thursday May 17, @01:28PM
            >expression in action

            I should have said "overt action" since of course the chemical processes in the brain which correspond to the idea are certainly actions. If one believes in some sort of Platonic reality where ideas are things in themselves, independent of individual brains, then perhaps "Behaviors are not ideas", but personally I think that's nonsense!


            • Re: Eumemics?
              by Jon Auviere on Thursday May 17, @02:59PM
              Righto! Could we also just refer a link: http://uretoo.tripod.com/mainframe/mind.htm
              and then go from there?


    Re: Eumemics?
    by cri hoor 217 on Friday May 11, @05:16PM
    dito, Mordecai, i am perfectly fine on one hand in the knowledge that my experiance of Thelema,is at odds with with practacily every other person that calls themselves a thelemite, because my experiance is unique to me, nevertheless as my knowledge or lack of knowledge, my meme filter as it were; is its own proof of science or psycho/spiritual ( in lieu of the meme word: (religion)
    i am intensly aware of the socio/sexual implacations; this being its own meme reality tunnel, that i needs must filter my experiance through to even begin to express my thoughts on a certain subject matter; therefore i am either memed to death symbolicaly, or i am at some sort of nexus of focality, which would speak to the issue of eumemics, an opening in the usual way things are percieved, sometimes this takes the form of a blasted tower like havoc that vent through attempting to break through all and any social convention, a shattering of the image given
    in the local context, as an immediat suspision of
    reality manufacturing at any given nodal point, leaves it virtualy impossible to use language as a magickal battering ram, that is like a stone tossed in a pool, ramifications reverberating outward in a series of concentric circles of thought form, but the thought having equal acess to chaos and order, as on some levels the chaos is creative, and the order is destructive, and vice versa, in this respect there is a constant series of checks and balances that allow total transformation, no meme is too mean, or too meaningfull! every thing is suspect!now having said that i would like to
    acknowledge that on a poetic field of philosophical parameters this is an allusion to will, i will it so, therefore it is! meanwhile i
    realize in the world of science and civilization, being what is is the shear abyss of information that one must stare into is enought to turn you into a babbling idiot in the face of the idiot icons of artifical intelligence, but then i do not pretend to know everything, and ignorance is never bliss, but then neither is knowing everything, and knowing you are mearly a statistic, an integer, a
    fractal, a holon, a genome that is far to complex to hang any pet theorys on...or perhaps it's so simple that when we finaly discover its key then
    Crowleys enigmatic panoply will seem childs play...! (besides this is just a toss away antimeme)

    Re: Eumemics?
    by Xnoubis on Tuesday May 15, @01:35PM
    I just noticed this other manifestation of Richard Dawkins: his heartfelt eulogy for Douglas Adams. He mentions as an aside his own reception as a Fellow of the Royal Society.

    Re: Eumemics?
    by Xnoubis on Tuesday May 15, @07:04PM
    For the most part, the issues that have been raised so far aren't quite the ones I was envisioning. So I'll just list a few of the topics that come up for me when I consider the possibility of Thelemic eumemics, in two senses:

    Propagation of Thelema as a meme
    • What draws individuals to Thelema, and how can we enhance that?
    • What is happening to the role of spirituality in society that can be used to the advantage of Thelema?
    • What sorts of promotional strategies can be used to bring quality people into Thelema without inadvertently driving other quality people away?
    • Should Thelema be propagated at all?
    • What is Thelema's sacred mission at this time, if it has one at all?
    • Is there any coherent political stance that can be unambiguously ascribed to Thelema?
    • How is Thelema most effectively expressed through the arts?
    Propagation of memes consistent with Thelemic values
    • What makes people value freedom?
    • What conditions in history have proved condusive to the establishment of freer societies?
    • Is it possible to use mass media to encourage people to think for themselves? If not, how can they be so encouraged?
    • Is individual freedom an inalienable good?
    • Can the value of freedom be established as a common ground across religious boundaries?
    • Can an optimal balance be found between the rights of the individual and the functioning of the whole?
    • How can art best be used in alliance with the liberation of the individual?



    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Jon Auviere on Wednesday May 16, @05:47AM
      ok- I'll bite.

      >What draws individuals to Thelema, and how can we enhance that?

      Knowledge. Entertainment.

      >What is happening to the role of spirituality in society that can be used to the advantage of Thelema?

      People have become busy and pre-occupied in other things, thereby allow themselves less brainwork to believe or even get into magick seriously. Thelema might do well to be upfront.

      >What is Thelema's sacred mission at this time, if it has one at all?

      To find a legitimate body. C gives 23.

      >How is Thelema most effectively expressed through the arts?

      This has been tried. All resources have been exhausted.


    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Jon Auviere on Wednesday May 16, @04:47PM
      I believe that for Thelema to advance any further it would require the appearance of a new Prophet who put as much valuable work into it as Crowley once did. Thus following along these lines, if there were to be many of these Prophets there would soon follow an entirely new culture. The problem is clear--most prophets don't want to work for humanity as hard as Crowley did, or the prophets are just not as ingenius to fill those shoes. What is seen therefore are schisms. And I doubt any sort of definitive collaboration can be agreed upon democratically; Thelema has always survived by aristocracy: hence, the splintering effect--as Dio once sang "Kill the king/he'll rule no more/ take his head/ the people roar".

      The thing that's been bothering me in this thread is the idea of memetics and Thelema. I don't understand why you would suggest this route for enhancement. For I think of Memetics as exposing bad things. Thus to use the formula backwards would be rather dangerous.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by Xnoubis on Thursday May 17, @09:12AM
        I'm not sure I'm following you. But it's not so much that I feel that Thelema would be enhanced by memetics. It's more that I sense a fruitful field of inquiry exists in the relationships between cultural engineering, ethics, and Thelema.

        I'm starting to wonder, though, whether that's an interest that is peculiar to my approach to Thelema, and not of much general interest. Because (the silly term "eumemics" aside) I feel like I've stumbled onto the capstone of what Thelema means to me with this. Everything I've written on The Beast Bay so far derives from it. (It's kind of worrisome, actually. What the %$#@! do I write about now?)

        > For I think of Memetics as exposing bad things.
        > Thus to use the formula backwards would be
        > rather dangerous.

        Could you expand on this? I don't see what you're saying yet.


        • Re: Eumemics?
          by Jon Auviere on Thursday May 17, @12:49PM
          I respect your candid reply above, Xnoubis.

          And I for one would be interested in reading articles that possessed your Bold personal and opinionated Observations on any given event/subject. The connection to Thelema need not be written, for it seems to me that (it) lives on in person, not in body. But to the above you seem to imply that "Thelema" has ceased so far in your view. Or at least, there is alot in what you said that I cannot comprehend.

          OF my view regarding Memetics, it could be just a personal one, but I cannot get over the implications it has on mainstreem props and religions. Perhaps I have it that R. D. when he came up with this was so frustrated with the obvious foolishness of societies, and this system he derived from it as a psychological theory to expose thereof the peculiarities involved. Oddly enough there are other wider implications that it might be used for. As the aim of any valuable system soever is to raise the consciousness of man to the heights of genius. That is in general the pathway of advancement.

          Similarly, the exploitation of a society is for one (I hate to use this term, but) in 'coming out' and raising awareness (and secondly in 'simplicity'). But it must be done honorably.

          There was a show on MSNBC on certain Militia's that would confer all of society's worst conceptions of them. There were members (some high-ranking) of the Militia on that show that were just so jouvenile and shoddy that I couldn't help contracting momentarily their paranoid diseases just watching them. This conduct would not be good for any order. But to think, the concept or even goal of militias should be something that is proud and universal. Little do they know who were on my screen, ranting on about how they would kill any government offical that took their big 50 cal. away! I somehow wonder if all the trancers and the militias combined in respect to special disciplines if they would be unstoppable. Or similarly, if the Nazis (which I use as an example only that they were racy militant occultists--like metallica or megadeth in a way), if they did not insist on marching and speaking publicly, and at last being very openly active would have not gotten anywhere.

          I don't know. Too much Cognac!


          • Re: Eumemics?
            by Xnoubis on Thursday May 17, @07:08PM
            > But to the above you seem to imply that
            > "Thelema" has ceased so far in your view.

            Um, no. I didn't mean to imply that.

            As far as the rest of what you wrote, I'll have to let it gel for a while.


    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Xnoubis on Tuesday April 23, @05:30PM
      For the most part, the issues that have been raised so far aren't quite the ones I was envisioning. So I'll just list a few of the topics that come up for me when I consider the possibility of Thelemic eumemics, in two senses:

      Propagation of Thelema as a meme
      • What draws individuals to Thelema, and how can we enhance that?
      • What is happening to the role of spirituality in society that can be used to the advantage of Thelema?
      • What sorts of promotional strategies can be used to bring quality people into Thelema without inadvertently driving other quality people away?
      • Should Thelema be propagated at all?
      • What is Thelema's sacred mission at this time, if it has one at all?
      • Is there any coherent political stance that can be unambiguously ascribed to Thelema?
      • How is Thelema most effectively expressed through the arts?
      Propagation of memes consistent with Thelemic values
      • What makes people value freedom?
      • What conditions in history have proved condusive to the establishment of freer societies?
      • Is it possible to use mass media to encourage people to think for themselves? If not, how can they be so encouraged?
      • Is individual freedom an inalienable good?
      • Can the value of freedom be established as a common ground across religious boundaries?
      • Can an optimal balance be found between the rights of the individual and the functioning of the whole?
      • How can art best be used in alliance with the liberation of the individual?




    Re: Eumemics?
    by Jon Auviere on Wednesday May 16, @10:41AM
    For the sake of advancing I would like to add that there is a relevant study to be compared in "Moonchild" Chpts. II and III with that of memetics in relation to genetics. (seriously ;)

    • Re: Eumemics?
      by Xnoubis on Wednesday May 16, @11:40AM
      Cool! I'll look into it.


      • Re: Eumemics?
        by cri hoor 217 on Wednesday May 16, @03:55PM
        ...in 1904 something happened, a meme map?
        a mirror to a parallel event?(universe) a code book of creative action? creative chaos...(LOVE)!

        the question we could be asking is how effective
        has the Book of the Law been in countering that 'other behavior' (idea)!

        ..."And they bind themselves together with an oath and with a great curse, And thier malice they conspire together"...ect.

        Crowley brought a free light into the world...
        but the last time i looked i still have to pay for it!..( rolling blackouts!)...(ten thousand dollar
        hookers)...ect.

        ((meme meme we all scream for icecream!))



     
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


        "As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
    [ home | search ]