Genes to Memes

Millenniyule 2019: The Jolly Heretic … e=emb_logo

Cleansing philosophy of its accumulated garbage begins with the return of language to its original role as mitigating symbol connecting mind with reality.

It places the definition outside cultural and social circumstances and begins with nature as it exists before humans emerged and continues outside human contrivances.
The real now limiting the manner to which the idea/ideal can be defined and applied.

Words like ‘male/female’, ‘freedom’, ‘morality’, ‘love’, ‘race’, ‘sex/gender’, ‘order/chaos’, ‘will’, ‘self’, ‘god’, can all be reconnected to actions all can perceive and experience independently, without the intervention of a mediator.


1] flagrant assumptions
2] flagrant assumption expressed almost entirely in intellectual contraptions
3] intellectual contraptions that, sooner or later, topple over into frenetic posts whereby he can barely contain his outrage at those who refuse to think exactly as he does

After all, if he can’t “[cleanse] philosophy of its accumulated garbage” up in the clouds of abstraction, he will sooner or later resort to huffing and puffing about those who refuse to join him there.

Come on, how long can he last? :wink:

Abrahamic post-Marxist Linguistics
The only correct answer is:
We are all victims.
We are all equally ignorant.
We must come to our senses and come to a mutually beneficial agreement that stops all this conflict.

We are all equal in sin; we are all equal in imperfection. We are a uniformity of sinful arrogance.

If you do not post a disclaimer, showing some humility, or self-doubt, then you are an evil fascist, or na objectivist. Same thing - a capitalist, a nazi….use any metaphor for absolute evil.
The proper behaviour to change the world, is to admit that nobody knows the absolute truth, and that we are all absolutely ignorant.
Parity in Nil.
Uniformity in and through the negative.

ILP can have this trash to recycle it…but it cannot. So, it gets pulled into the hole, the void - its trash-bin.
A Gordian Knot linguistic trick.
How did Alexander solve the conundrum?

He was like a man who once wanted to change the world, but was soon disillusioned and feeling like a fool, he resolved to pull the world down with him, as a last act of contrition.

With no absolute oneness - no god - the only concept left to worship is absolute nil - chaos.
All attempts to use words in a way that reconnects them to reality, is the new ‘evil’ - because reality is where need suffering comes from - it is hell on earth.
We must escape ni linguistic meaninglessness and reject all attempts that use reality as the standard for defining words.

Abrahamism failed to bring about the pious man; Marxism failed to bring about Utopia; god is dead, so Paradise is truly lost.
What’s left to the nihilist other than the absolute nil?

As far as I can tell, he’s merely stating that philsophical beliefs (and beliefs in general) should be evidence-based. It’s a rather trivial insight. You disagree with it?

Well, in order to pursue evidence in regard to “cultural and social circumstances”, we need to focus in on actual sets of circumstances relating to ‘male/female’, ‘freedom’, ‘morality’, ‘love’, ‘race’, ‘sex/gender’, ‘order/chaos’, ‘will’, ‘self’, ‘god’.

You must know by now of my own narrative [intellectual contraption] here. That any particular individual’s value judgments revolving around these things are embedded subjectively in the manner in which I construe the existential relationship between identity, conflicting goods and political economy – economic wealth reconfigured into, among other things, government, the armed forces and the police.

In other words, the intertwining of an extremely complex conflation of countless variables embedded in the historical, cultural and day to day interpersonal interaction of genes and memes.

Instead, by and large, in my view, he [if he is who I presume he is] approaches these things by insisting that there are “natural” and “unnatural” political agendas. And, if you are one of us you get that in precisely the same manner that he does. Whether it be in regard to race or gender or sexual oriention or any number of political prejudices that he encompasses in his own scholastic rendition of “serious philosophy”.

So, why don’t the three of us zero in on an actual context relating to one of the things above and note what we deem to be the most rational assessment. In particular when there are clearly conflicting goods involved.

All must be made ideological.
All must be made empirically meaningless.
All must be made into a ideological, spiritual, product to be purchased and sold - recycling older versions that were successful, and resold as new and improved.

Uniformity in the market place; equality of supply and demand.

Nihilism is a defensive reaction to a reality that denies the individual certainty, completion, immortality, salvation.
It has to make words empirically meaningless so as to promote tis own ideological alternatives.
Meaning has to be made meaningless for it to be declared subjective and entirely malleable - perspectivism to its absolute logical end.

Although how phenomena inter-relate, and the degree that they do so - meaning - is objectively real (independent form subjective interpretation) - evaluated by the subject - the nihilist must make it subjective in origins to escape its implications.

Philosophy must be converted to psychology - politics, marketing.

If George Orwell were still around and noted something like this of the world we live in, I’d ask him to note a particular set of circumstances; and, then, to make a distinction between things that were in fact obviously true for all of us and things in which different individuals insisted that conflicting things were true.

Since he is no longer around, is there anyone here who would like to pursue this with me?

It is the set of circumstances it demands to be given.
It is the validation of my theories about nihilists and nihilism.

It is the psychosis of nil, and its seductive power.

When the mind goes on defensive mode, and tis own survival is at stake - its own ego - then there is nothing that can convince it to break out of its linguistic cocoon.
It will, at once, accuse others of word-games, and a employ them, only admitting that it does so to declare it a universal truth.

All must be brought down…to parity.
No gradations - no degrees - no levels. Only absolutes.
If not one-god, then an absolute; if an absolute one, then an absolute nil - parity in negation.
Marxist psychology.
All must be equalized -erasing sex, race, species…all biological, physical traits revealing hierarchy, must be reduced to nil, if they cannot be absorbed into the singularity of oneness.

The evolution of Abrahamic spiritual nihilism.

He’s back. But nothing changes. He makes these didactic – at times pedantic – assumptions about human interactions expressed entirely in intellectual contraptions. As though demanding an actual set of circumstances in which to explore the assumptions is nothing short of an insult to the serious philosopher.

The only “singularity of oneness” I can extract from intellectual glop of this sort is ever and always hung up there on the skyhooks.

Or, sure, I challenge those who do agree with his assessment to note how in fact his points are relevant to the life that they live in regard to the role that genes and memes play in their interactions with other. In particular, when those interactions come into conflict over value judgments.

Same shit.
A recording.
One of those spin-tables, that skips once in a while, because some dust fell on it.

This is my example of my theory - a living breathing pure nihilist.
My theories have a pragmatic reference. they aren’t book based.

The other is Brian.
Classic case.
He’s still in the Marxist phase. The other one is beyond it - more advanced. More ‘mature’'.
Brian in 10, 15, years, when death comes closer.

See what I mean?

I post this:

And this is all he is able to come up with!!

All I can do then is to the prompt those who share his own intellectual assumptions above, to bring them out into the world of conflicting goods as that relates existentially to their own understanding of genes and memes in a particular context.

How about you, phoneutria? :wink:

Godammit Biggs is not more advanced than me, man! The only reason I let him live here is because we go way back and he does good work.

Same cut and paste replies. then declarations of victory…disclaimers…and repeat.

The world must be pulled down, before it dies…in body as it has already in spirit - in mind.
Revenge of the disenchanted and un-invested.

Linguistic resentiment, by those who worship the idol, and call him fritze to pretend a nonchalant attitude.
Nietzsche’s Bitches.

We call em Nietches.

fitz fried…addictive to the unsophisticated of palate.

I really hate it when people mix genetics, evolution and just random stuff together. Biology contains all the miracles you’ll ever need. CGAT is a language, epigentic methylation of expression sites is another, mutagenisis is the spoon that stirs the pot. By comparison memes are badly spelled Chinese knock-off t-shirts.

Please stop hurting science with pseudo-philosophic bumper-stickers and historical leaps of faith. Also. Read a book. That’s gotta be a t-shirt. Or like that guy from Top-gun. Do the research. I dunno, whatever.

Right…stay as you are.

From genes to memes.
Genes use nucleotides, memes use symbols.
Memes are extensions of genes. Evolution of genetic encoding, into linguistic semiotic, encoding.

Zip, crunch, burl bath, gurgle…snap.

Genes do not ‘use’ anything, they simply ‘are’. However, they do by their nature contain the mechanisms of their own propagation. And so persist.
Memes do not ‘use’ anything, they simply ‘are’. Unlike genes, they are inert in their nature, unable to propagate alone.

Unlike genes, which are seemingly ubiquitous to life, at least on this planet, memes are only indirect extensions of a very small number of genes, and even then, only when those genes are combined into, so far, only one very specific configuration - namely the human genome. A bacteria genome does not extend itself into memes, nor a cheetah’s, nor a daisy’s.

Genes directly code for chemical processes, a byproduct of which is physical bodies of varying properties and abilities. These bodies, simply through their own agency, compete with each other, and with the nature of the enviroment into which they are inserted.

Memes sometimes code for behaviour, and/or emotion which drives latent behaviour in humans. However, the competitiveness of these memes is not inherrent to the meme itself, but to the abilities of the human who expresses them and secondarily the vehicle upon which said human expresses them.

Put very simply for comparison, a genome coding for a strong body will overcome directly a genome coding for a weak body. A ‘weak’ meme, however, expressed by a ‘strong’ human will overcome a ‘strong’ meme expressed by a ‘weak’ human. Imagine a room full of congenitally weak geophysicists and one cannibal with biceps the size of melons who believes the earth is flat. Which meme ‘wins’…? And was the nature of its success dependent in any way on its own merits…?

Also note that some gene complexes can also code for behaviour - innate aversions for snakes - or at least the shape of snakes, and some influencers of prey behaviour in mice and ants are examples that spring to mind. Memes completely lack the ability to code for bodies, unless you count gym-culture, and even that is stretching further than a 12th dan yoga ninja.

The above was an exercise in examining/defining terms. If you do not do this, anything you infer, imply or propose consequently, means exactly squat.

“Memes are extensions of genes” in the same way that “tables are extensions of trees”.