I find most of this rather suspect, but it may be of interest.
"In fact, despite all his impassioned protestations to the contrary, Dennett is seeking to salvage a view of humankind derived from Western religion. To be sure, he wants to demolish the metaphysical belief in freedom of the will that has been the foundation of this view in the past – but only in order to give it another, more solid foundation in contemporary science. Like many others over the past 100 years or so, Dennett looks to evolution for the moral uplift that used to be afforded by religion.<snip>
In developing his conception of evolving freedom, Dennett relies heavily on Richard Dawkins' theory of memes: ideas that compete with one another in a way analogous to natural selection in biology. The trouble with this unhappy metaphor is that there is no known mechanism for the spread of ideas akin to the transmission of genes. The history of ideas is made largely by political power and human folly – not through the workings of natural selection.
If there is no Cathar religion today, the reason is not that natural selection has weeded out the memes that composed the Cathar belief-system. It is that the Cathars were persecuted into extinction. Moreover, even if there were something like a mechanism for the natural selection of ideas, its results could be deeply regressive from an ethical point of view. Think of anti-Semitism, a highly versatile meme that continues to replicate itself virulently. Successful memes include some that express humanity's worst traits. Evolution is one thing, progress another. "
"If there is no Cathar religion today, the reason is not that natural =20=
selection has weeded out the memes that composed the Cathar =20 belief-system. It is that the Cathars were persecuted into extinction."
It is interesting that the reviewer sees a dichotomy here. Surely the =20=
"persecution into extinction" is natural selection in action? The =20 Cathar memes were not fit to survive within a culture that regarded =20 them as heretical...
Regards, Ant
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 01:28 pm, kharin wrote:
> Dennett is seeking to salvage a view of humankind derived from Western = =20 > religion. To be sure, he wants to demolish the metaphysical belief in =20=
> freedom of the will that has been the foundation of this view in the =20=
> past =96 but only in order to give it another, more solid foundation = in =20 > contemporary science. Like many others over the past 100 years or so, =20=
> Dennett looks to evolution for the moral uplift that used to be =20 > afforded by religion.<snip> > > In developing his conception of evolving freedom, Dennett relies =20 > heavily on Richard Dawkins' theory of memes: ideas that compete with =20=
> one another in a way analogous to natural selection in biology. The =20=
> trouble with this unhappy metaphor is that there is no known mechanism = =20 > for the spread of ideas akin to the transmission of genes. The history = =20 > of ideas is made largely by political power and human folly =96 not =20=
> through the workings of natural selection. > > If there is no Cathar religion today, the reason is not that natural =20=
> selection has weeded out the memes that composed the Cathar =20 > belief-system. It is that the Cathars were persecuted into extinction. = =20 > Moreover, even if there were something like a mechanism for the =20 > natural selection of ideas, its results could be deeply regressive =20 > from an ethical point of view. Think of anti-Semitism, a highly =20 > versatile meme that continues to replicate itself virulently. =20 > Successful memes include some that express humanity's worst traits. =20=
> Evolution is one thing, progress another. " > > ---- > This message was posted by kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of = =20 > Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/=20 > index.php?board=3D54;action=3Ddisplay;threadid=3D27806> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to =20 > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > Ant Allan
Re:Dennett, Freedom Evolves. John Gray Review
« Reply #2 on: 2003-02-12 06:53:08 »
Quote:
"It is interesting that the reviewer sees a dichotomy here. Surely the "persecution into extinction" is natural selection in action? The Cathar memes were not fit to survive within a culture that regarded them as heretical..."
Exactly. Gray sees them as disembodied entities separate from the beings that instantiate them. That piece reminded me strongly of this old article:
"It is not easy to see the disagreement between the two schools as a large or significant one. Both sides believe that the influence of natural selection is enormous, but that it operates only in the context of environmental circumstances that make some characteristics of organisms adaptive and others not, and are responsible for the extinction of species from time to time. Both sides believe that some features are directly explained by natural selection, and others are mere side-effects. They also both acknowledge that physics and chemistry constrain and shape the biological possibilities and the range of possible genetic variation. So why are they so cross with each other?"
In this context, why is the exercise of political power separate from memetic influence?
virus: Re:Dennett, Freedom Evolves. John Gray Review
« Reply #3 on: 2003-02-12 15:53:56 »
[Ant Allan] It is interesting that the reviewer sees a dichotomy here. Surely the "persecution into extinction" is natural selection in action? The Cathar memes were not fit to survive within a culture that regarded them as heretical...
[Kharin] Exactly. Gray sees them as disembodied entities separate from the beings that instantiate them. That piece reminded me strongly of this old article:
In this context, why is the exercise of political power separate from memetic influence?
[rhinoceros] Interesting... The Cathar religion persecuted into extinction... Since we are talking about memes rather than genes here, that needs some thought to figure out what it implies for the CoV and the "how we can complete" question (as discussed in our latest IRC chat).
We have been talking a lot about methods of rational discourse, but if we carry the selection mechanism analogy from the genes to the memes, it seems that the survival and proliferation of a memeplex depends a lot on the survival and proliferation of its potent carriers in the physical world and in society -- avoiding physical harm and memetic deprogramming of the potent carriers and getting access to efficient means of memetic propagation.
Generally speaking, the Virian rational outlook may or may not be viable in this sense, or it may or may not be possible to be made viable. On the other hand, we may not want to adopt just any memeplex only on the grounds that it is viable...
I can imagine a case where a "superior" memeplex seems to be hardly viable in the current situation because of the resistance of established memeplexes which have a stranglehold on the technological means of memetic propagation. Of course, things may change if that memeplex gets past a barrier. Again, by "superior" I meant a memeplex which is better for the physical and social survival and proliferation of its potent carriers.
It occurs to me that the Cathar memeplex does survive even though the=20 Cathars are extinct, in as much as we still know what the Cathars=20 believed (or at least some historians amongst us might) without it=20 anyone actually practising those beliefs=85
It seems that, like a gene, a meme(plex) can be carried without being=20 "switched on".
And that successful memplexes (e.g., "historian") can ensure the=20 propagation of unsuccessful memeplexes. (Maybe only if those memeplexes=20=
have an "intriguing to historians" aspect!)
Regards, Ant
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 08:53 pm, rhinoceros wrote:
> [Ant Allan] > It is interesting that the reviewer sees a dichotomy here. Surely the > "persecution into extinction" is natural selection in action? The=20 > Cathar > memes were not fit to survive within a culture that regarded them as > heretical... > > [Kharin] > Exactly. Gray sees them as disembodied entities separate from the=20 > beings > that instantiate them. That piece reminded me strongly of this old=20 > article: > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n07/nage01_.html > > <snip> > > In this context, why is the exercise of political power separate from > memetic influence? > > > [rhinoceros] > Interesting... The Cathar religion persecuted into extinction... Since=20=
> we > are talking about memes rather than genes here, that needs some=20 > thought to > figure out what it implies for the CoV and the "how we can complete" > question (as discussed in our latest IRC chat). > > We have been talking a lot about methods of rational discourse, but if=20=
> we > carry the selection mechanism analogy from the genes to the memes, it=20=
> seems > that the survival and proliferation of a memeplex depends a lot on the > survival and proliferation of its potent carriers in the physical=20 > world and > in society -- avoiding physical harm and memetic deprogramming of the=20=
> potent > carriers and getting access to efficient means of memetic propagation. > > Generally speaking, the Virian rational outlook may or may not be=20 > viable in > this sense, or it may or may not be possible to be made viable. On the=20=
> other > hand, we may not want to adopt just any memeplex only on the grounds=20=
> that it > is viable... > > I can imagine a case where a "superior" memeplex seems to be hardly=20 > viable > in the current situation because of the resistance of established=20 > memeplexes > which have a stranglehold on the technological means of memetic=20 > propagation. > Of course, things may change if that memeplex gets past a barrier.=20 > Again, by > "superior" I meant a memeplex which is better for the physical and=20 > social > survival and proliferation of its potent carriers. > > Any thoughts? > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to=20 > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > Ant Allan
Re:Dennett, Freedom Evolves. John Gray Review
« Reply #5 on: 2003-02-13 06:37:17 »
As I recall, the Cathars professed a neo- Manichaean dualism, which regarded the material world as sinful. Man was but a sojourner in such a world; his aim must be to free his spirit, which was in its nature good, and restore it to communion with God. In other words, martyrdom was in many respects a more appealing prospect than life, since the Cathar worldview was essentially inimical to life. I would have thought this would not have borne well for the possibility of adaptation and replication, whereas Virus was established for that purpose.
Quote:
"It occurs to me that the Cathar memeplex does survive even though the=20 Cathars are extinct"
Still being persecuted I see! (The website was hacked last year.)
Is there unbroken continuity from the medi=E6val Cathars? I doubt it. =20=
Something has switched on that memeplex (or some mutation of it) in =20 these people...
/@
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 11:37 am, kharin wrote:
> > > As I recall, the Cathars professed a neo- Manichaean dualism, which =20=
> regarded the material world as sinful. Man was but a sojourner in such = =20 > a world; his aim must be to free his spirit, which was in its nature =20=
> good, and restore it to communion with God. In other words, martyrdom =20=
> was in many respects a more appealing prospect than life, since the =20=
> Cathar worldview was essentially inimical to life. I would have =20 > thought this would not have borne well for the possibility of =20 > adaptation and replication, whereas Virus was established for that =20 > purpose. > > "It occurs to me that the Cathar memeplex does survive even though =20 > the=3D20 > Cathars are extinct" > > If the Cathars are extinct perhaps someone should tell this lot: =20 > http://www.cathar.net/ > > ---- > This message was posted by kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of = =20 > Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/=20 > index.php?board=3D54;action=3Ddisplay;threadid=3D27806> > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to =20 > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > Ant Allan
Re:Dennett, Freedom Evolves. John Gray Review
« Reply #7 on: 2003-02-13 08:09:43 »
Quote:
"Is there unbroken continuity from the medieval Cathars? I doubt it."
As do I - when I said someone should tell them of the extinction of the Cathars I meant it in an advisory sense... at the very least those attracted to medieval ideologies (did you see the bit about how wonderful the Amish are!) should have the decency to steer clear of the web.
Which brings us back to the gods. And your comment that "The Crusades may have been ordered by the priests, but it was generals that commanded the battles. And generals don't give a damn about faith, they only care about winning." is simply untrue. Generals (good ones - that is "good" as in "effective") tend to know more about ethics than any priest will ever learn. The effective application of force requires skilled management of men. And the best way to motivate your men is to let your cause be just. Again, this was said by Sun Tzu and has been repeated by every serious military writer since then.
Imagine the president of the United States saying to the abolition era gunmen of Chicago - Christian knights in those days had no higher ethic - that he would appreciate it if they would invade and sack Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Pasadena. The issue of guarantees for a crusade and incitements to war by Pope "Innocent" III had about the same effect as you can imagine an invitation like this would have had. This is the "spiritual" background to one of the Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade. The victims were some of the hardest working, most principled, “nicest” and certainly amongst the wealthiest, people of Europe. They were quietly minding their own businesses in cities and villages in what is today Southern France. Unfortunately, their gentle “communist” belief was winning converts, which made the Roman Catholic Church most unhappy. Who were the executioners? A contemporary poet claimed that twenty thousand knights and two hundred thousand afoot converged upon the Albigensians. They were led by the Cistercian Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud-Armaury, spiritual leader of the Albigenses Crusade and as bloody a priest as Torquemada, together with a seedy English-French adventurer mercenary, Simon de Montfort, whose purse was empty. The King of France was not in it, at first, only because his terms to the Pope were exorbitant, later because he objected to the decimation of his country.
Innocent boasts that they took five hundred towns and castles from the heretics, and they generally butchered every man, woman and child in a town when they took it. Noble ladies with their daughters were thrown down wells, and large stones flung upon them. Knights were hanged in batches of eighty. When, at the first large town they came to, Béziers, soldiers asked how they could distinguish between heretics and orthodox, Arnaud-Armaury replied with an apposite biblical quotation, from 2 Tim. 2:19: "The Lord knoweth who are his - Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius." and said, on July, 22nd 1209, "Kill them all, God will know his own." Note that because the punch line is a biblical verse, neither he nor his informant(s) are likely to have misquoted him, and the point of the story to his fellow Cistercians who quoted him was the wit of the abbot's reply. Perhaps the Albigensians were less amused as the rabble raped their women and then put to the sword the forty thousand men, women and children who had surrendered; before pillaging and then destroying the town.
The Pope's behavior during these horrible years was revolting. Raymond of Toulouse, to spare his people, submitted before the crusade began. The Pope had expressly told his legates ("Letters," xi, 232) to "deceive him and pass to the extirpation of the other heretics." Pope Innocent’s brutal treatment of Raymond, without any trial, earned the censure of the Catholic king of France. Pope Innocent III stopped the crusade after two years of almost unparalleled butchery, then yielded to the fanaticism of the monks and the greed of the soldiers, and reopened it. When it reopened in 1214, the promise of Papal forgiveness drew a further hundred thousand "pilgrims" to join "God's Army".
Are you sure that the opportunity for church sanctioned rape, together with pillage and looting which had enriched every member of the previous force, would not have influenced this prayerful, faithful group of devoute and loving Christian bretheren? <Extreme Sarcasm>.
Generals commanding the crusades? No. The crusades were a mob, led on and encouraged by mercenary priests. Which of course brings us right back to faith. And what could be less rational than that? Any idea that it was solely the Albigensians' (Cathars') memeset per se which made them targets at the time of the Albigensian Crusade is, I think, missing a critical point. The point being that they had developed a social order which encouraged both cooperation and a very strong work ethic. In a premechanized, agrarian society, this made for a rapid increase in wealth. The wealth in turn made them attractive victims. The fact that the Waldensians of Southern Germany survived as long as they did, till around 1300, despite persecution for their similar Manichean memeplex, can be ascribed to the fact that the area was so torn up by never-ending internicene strife that they were not worth plundering. It was only when they started to develop a wealthy sub-culture that they were finally exterminated.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
