I have been studying meme theory and I have to say I am both mesmerized by it and appalled at the same time. I don't believe it but it leaves some things to think about. What is everyone else�s opinion?

There would also be a "Satan meme" if memes do exist. I am a Christian so I am biased.

Meme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can.
The term meme ([miːm] in the IPA; rhymes with "dream"; from the Greek word mimema for 'something imitated') often refers to any piece of information passed from one mind to another. In this sense, it relates closely to the academic study of folklore, in that folkloristics deals with the informal communication of cultural information. This usage more closely resembles the analogy of "language as a virus" than Dawkins' analogy (see below) of memes as replicating units. This definition has come into popular use on the Internet to refer to phenomena such as Obey Giant, "All your base are belong to us", Blogebrity and Icy Hot Stuntaz.

The term meme first came into popular use with the publication of the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins in 1976. The conceptual framework is borrowed from genes -- the unit of biological transmission. By analogy with genetics, a meme is passed from generation to generation, with occasional "mutations," but is passed via family and cultural traditions or training rather than sexual reproduction. This analogy suggests that the definition of a meme should be the physical structure, or abstract code representing that structure, representing a real meme as observed in situ. Genes are not dependent upon their being transfer to be considered existent, they only need to have a definite and unique physical structure. The analogy should, properly, be extended to the concept of a meme.

Unlike genes, memes can typically be passed horizontally as well. Memes often occur in groups called "meme complexes," such as religious or political doctrine. Though Dawkins defined the meme as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," memeticists vary in their definitions of meme. The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise definition of a meme remains one of the principal criticisms leveled at memetics, the study of memes.

The notion of a unit of social evolution, and a similar term (from Greek mneme, 'memory'), first appeared in 1904 in a work by the German evolutionary biologist Richard Semon: Die Mnemische Empfindungen in ihren Beziehungen zu den Originalenempfindungen, translated into English in 1921 as The Mneme.

Different definitions of meme generally agree, very roughly, that a meme consists of some sort of a self-propagating unit of cultural evolution having a resemblance to the gene (the unit of genetics). Dawkins introduced the term after writing that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission � in the case of biological evolution, the gene. For Dawkins, the meme exemplifies another self-replicating unit, and most importantly, one which he thought would prove useful in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution.

Consort memes of the Christianity Meme complex
The Christianity Meme is a successful complex of smaller memes that effectively work together to help the complex maintain its integrity. (See "The Essence of Christianity" on this web site.) Here, we try to tease apart the Christianity meme complex and expose some of its many consort memes. These memes constitute some of the main elements of Christian beliefs. We include a brief statement how the consort meme and the Christianity meme are mutually supportive. Arguments against these beliefs are also made. (The presentation order of these memes is not significant.) Because there are thousands of consort memes, we try to focus on the consorts that have greatly contributed to Christianity's success. Please feel free to offer suggestions for this web page.
Consort Meme #1. Morality is derived from a belief in God.
By implication, those without a God (Buddhists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc.) are inherently immoral.

Examples:
The Texas Constitution, written in 1875, includes the following provision: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution supersedes this provision.)
The movement in the U. S. to promote religion in schools (prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc.) as a response to the recent high school shootings as a means of improving the moral character of students. See the news article " For the Right, Littleton's Tragedy became a 'Window of Opportunity'".
Commonly, two life paths are presented by Christian leaders: a life of wanting material possessions, hedonism, and selfishness; or the path a life in faith in Jesus. At the August 20, 2000 mass held at the World Youth Day Festival, the Pope reacted to the large youth audience by saying, "Our society desperately needs this sign, and young people need it even more so, tempted as they are by the illusion of an easy and comfortable life, by drugs and pleasure seeking, only to find themselves in a spiral of despair, meaninglessness and violence."
Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
This highly successful meme has great support in the United States because it does not alienate the influential Jewish community. If Buddhists, for example, were more powerful in the U.S., this meme would not be as successful. Those infected with the Christianity Meme use this belief in order to gain a wider stronghold on institutions, such as schools. Once this meme is accepted, it is relatively easy for the Christianity Meme to also be accepted.
Arguments against the belief:
First, the argument belittles humanity. It effectively says that man is incapable of moral action without threat of punishment (or enticement of reward) from an all-powerful being. It reduces us to the level of children who are told by our mothers: "you're going to get a whipping when your daddy hears what you did." Action directed by fear of reprisal is not morality, it's manipulation. Perhaps most Christians are at a childhood level of maturity and therefore need this type of external structure. It is inappropriate as a blanket belief for all humanity.

Next, why should a being of another species be the author of moral laws for humans? As shown elsewhere on this site, the Christian God does not follow his own laws. This casts serious doubts as to the value of moral laws derived from a belief in a Christian God.
Consort Meme #2. The Bible represents the truth as revealed to us by God.
This is a combination of two closely related ideas, that the Bible is divinely inspired (or even written by God) and that it represents the ultimate truth.

Examples:
Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Nearly all Christian denominations are based primarily on Biblical teaching.
Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
The Christianity Meme is aided by this consort in that the Christianity Meme becomes simply the spreading of God's word. To do anything else would go against the universe (presumably). The consort benefits as it is a central tenet of Christian thought.
Arguments against the belief:
While Christians everywhere agree on the importance of the Bible to their faith, it is nearly impossible for two Christians to agree on exactly what parts of the Bible are true. While the fundamentalists say it's all true, they become the objects of ridicule when the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible are pointed out. (Creationism and the "young earth theory", borne out of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, are scientifically unsound, as one example. Sadly, reason, logic, and science are completely lost on these people, who doggedly cling to false beliefs and continue promoting them. The Christianity Meme benefits greatly from its control over these people.) Other denominations reject a literal interpretation of the Bible saying that most of it is metaphorical and subject to interpretation. Non fundamentalist clergy squirm when asked exactly what parts of the Bible are true. They know that clergy at whatever church next door will give a different answer. (These disagreements are the source of denominational splits, which are rarely pretty.) By avoiding this question, clergy are trying to avoid religious wars and the associated bloodshed. What good is the "truth", if nobody can quite put their finger on it? What is really promoted is a vague illusion of truth. As if to say, "It's in there somewhere, but we're not quite sure where."

When pressed, most Christians will agree that the Ten Commandments were the word of God. It is one place in the Bible where God clearly tries to communicate his intended laws to his people. This must be important stuff. He even supposedly wrote it down on stone tablets so that it wouldn't get muddled up or destroyed. Isn't it funny that man managed to pulverize those tablets and muddle up their message anyway. (Maybe if he was smart, he would have made them out of diamonds and hung them up out of reach.) Isn't the word of God important enough to keep intact?

To summarize,
the Bible has a poor history of truthfulness when it has made assertions that were later scientifically examined,
it contains many contradictions and inconsistencies, and
nobody can agree on the parts of the Bible that might actually be true (or even God's word).
The notion that the Bible represents truth is nothing more than a farce that helps the Christianity Meme continue to thrive.
Consort Meme #3. Praying to God will make him do things for us.
Examples:
Group prayer is an integral part of Christian religious services as communication with God. Such prayers usually take the form of a request to God.
An entire culture has grown up around prayer to increase its effectiveness. Consider the rosary, asking clergy for blessings, and the act of going to church (or some other holy place) to pray.
Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
Christianity dis-empowers its believers by promoting the idea that an individual has no power unless he gives his life to God. Prayer is one of the means by which the power of God is meted out to the faithful--the deeper one's faith, the more likely the prayer is to take effect. Thus, prayer appeals to our desire for power and, in some cases, our selfishness. Who wouldn't want to be able to control the power of a God, just like that of a genie? The "praying" meme is thus reinforced by Christianity (the Christianity Meme).

Prayer is a human activity that is known to alter the state of the mind and body. While the effects of this activity are not fully understood, it may be that prayer can act as a gateway to unleashing some human powers. See "The "Healing Words" Interview With Dr. Larry Dossey M.D". The Christianity Meme benefits from these tangible effects of prayer in that the effects are mistakenly believed to be due to a Christian God.
Arguments against the belief:
The James Randi Educational Foundation has yet to verify any claims of supernatural activity related to prayer (or any other human endeavor). Surely proving such a claim would greatly benefit the Christian movement and garner prize money that could be used to further promote Christian beliefs. Prayer is simply a means of reinforcing the Christianity Meme's hold over its hosts and thus increasing its longevity. The drug-like effects of prayer are easily attributed to a religious euphoria of feeling "one with God". Any prayers realized are coincidence that help reinforce the association. Ironically, when a prayer does not work, blame is placed on the wisdom of God or the lack of faith of the prayer, both of which also serve to reinforce the meme complex.
Consort Meme #4. We each have a soul given to us by God.
The soul meme is a complex unto itself, including concepts of heaven and hell. Most religions have some notion of a soul that allegedly gives us a vehicle to immortality.

Examples:
The various sects of Christianity claim different mechanisms by which your actions and beliefs in this life will facilitate your soul's going to heaven after death.
The notion that a loved one who has died is "in a better place" and still able to interact with us at some level is very comforting.
The practice of saying "bless you" when someone sneezes is based on the superstition that when you sneeze, your soul pops out of your body briefly and can be snatched by the Devil. The blessing supposedly prevents this awful fate.
Synergism with the Christianity Meme:
The notion of a soul that outlives the body is effectively a means of cheating death. The soul meme plays to our deeply rooted survival instincts. Once a person adopts a belief in the soul, the rejection of that belief requires accepting one's eventual death. Because most people prefer to remain in denial about their mortality, the soul meme remains entrenched.

Christianity simply doesn't work without the soul meme and the consort memes of heaven and hell. Without a soul, there can be no mechanism for the reward of a blissful afterlife of basking in the glory of God or the punishment of eternal damnation with its associated fire and brimstone. Therefore, without the soul meme, the Christianity Meme looses its most effective hook for behavioral control of its host.
Arguments against the belief:
Christians believe that the soul is created at conception. (This is the primary reason why Christians are against abortion.) The soul remains with the human body while the person is alive. At death, the soul is released, judged at the "pearly gates", and sent to heaven or hell. (There are lots of variations on this story.)
Human cloning challenges these beliefs, however. It will soon be possible to clone an entire human from a single cell. What about the soul of this new human? One of three possibilities arise:
The new human has a soul of his own. Unfortunately, this possibility takes God out of the picture. Perhaps Christians will eventually decide to claim that God blesses cloning, which is the opposite of their current beliefs.
The new human shares the soul of the original. This possibility flies in the face of the idea of free will. Does the soul go to heaven based on the actions of the original human or the clone? What if the original human is a saint and the clone is Pagan? This doesn't seem to fit very well with Christian ideas of judgment and free will.
The new human doesn't have a soul. This is by far the most terrifying idea to Christians. Without a soul, the clone would essentially be some sort of monster without any potential for morals. Remember the controversy surrounding invitro fertilization? Christians claimed the same thing then. Healthy, normal children that have been conceived outside the womb disproves this predicted horror scenario.
By far, the most terrifying scenario to Christians is for cloning and stem cell research to render the notion of the soul to be complete nonsense. This would rock the very foundation of Christianity. As a result, Christians are very much opposed to this kind of research. They are happy to trade any life sustaining medical breakthroughs for all people so that that they can keep their obsolete notions of the soul and a potential for afterlife.

I would counter with the Atheist meme. But that would only reinforce the situation.

Eric, I mostly like meme theory and think there's much merit to it. Spiral Dynamics makes use of this idea in its recognizing vMemes, which are even deeper than Dawkins' memes in their structuring one's worldview.

Memes just means "beliefs," really, and we can see how these are propagated through music, symbols, rituals, liturgy, the media, movies, etc. There's no doubting that this takes place -- even in Christianity -- and if one's isn't somewhat reflective, they can be highly determinative of one's self-image, relationships, lifestyle, etc. So memes are powerful, but not absolutely so. In the end, human awareness, intelligence and freedom can see them for what they are, drop them, and move in another direction.

I haven't read about vMemes yet.

I do think there is an element of truth to the theory. I see them more as dogmatic patterns. But I have heard them as being described as alive yet unconscious entities.

I think there is huge potential for Atheist attachment to this theory for "Christian Deprogramming".

I would think that if Christianity was a meme that it still does not prove Christ did not come. But more proves the shortcomings of man.

I feel that if I accept the theory I will drift back into Atheism. Because under all my layers I am an Atheist to the core and this theory resonates with me. Basically I see myself as an atheist that made the choice to believe in God. Well, maybe agnostic at the core.

I believed the universe was created by God but not a personal one. But for me to be a Christian and to accept my personal experiences as valid I must accept a personal God even if it brings my common sense to its knees. Because even after my experiences fade away I want to start to rationalize and deduce them. I just won't allow that to happen and consider it my invitation to Christ.

Merry Christmas BTW.

C.S. Lewis was an educated, sophisticated, orange meme atheist, as was Bede Griffiths, his protege.
He became an apologist for the "Christian meme."
I have found him to be helpful. Mere Christianity is
a very good, short book, if Eric needs a Christmas present to himself this year.

Checking out some apologetics ministries,I find that they are good antidotes for postmodern blues.

http://www.peterkreeft.com

Merry Christmas, Eric! Since I'm having a lousy x-mas myself, we can commiserate, from the Latin,
commiserare, to "suffer together." Kreeft has a new lecture on the meaning of suffering. I'm listening now...

there_is_a_reason_4_the_season.com

I would think that if Christianity was a meme that it still does not prove Christ did not come. But more proves the shortcomings of man.

There is a memetic dimension to Christianity, but it doesn't mean that the underlying assumptions are fraudulent. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. I've read those reports before about how atheists want to de-program Christians, as though Christianity is only a memetic construct. Then there's the question of who will deprogram the atheists?

I feel that if I accept the theory I will drift back into Atheism. Because under all my layers I am an Atheist to the core and this theory resonates with me. Basically I see myself as an atheist that made the choice to believe in God. Well, maybe agnostic at the core.

If you think your belief is only a choice you've made, then you still haven't gone very deeply into understanding the meaning of grace. No offense intended with that blunt remark, Eric, but I'm sure there's much more going on than just you making choices in this matter.

I believed the universe was created by God but not a personal one. But for me to be a Christian and to accept my personal experiences as valid I must accept a personal God even if it brings my common sense to its knees. Because even after my experiences fade away I want to start to rationalize and deduce them. I just won't allow that to happen and consider it my invitation to Christ.

That's good. And we have gone into the issue of what we mean by personal God elsewhere (basically -- God has intelligence and will: that's all it means).

But there's no need to fear the "rationalizations." Christianity is not about blind faith, and the power of reason transcends rationalization. You can analyze things until you're blue in the face, but no rationalizations or even sound reasoning will plumb the depths completely. In the end, you're left staring in the face of mystery, and you can't even account for the fact of your existence nor anything else for that matter.

As MM notes, Peter Kreeft's work is good to consider.

The Christianity Meme is a successful complex of smaller memes that effectively work together to help the complex maintain its integrity.

That makes me think that, if memes are real, Eric, and if smaller memes effectively work together to support larger ones, we must then consider the Ulitmate meme and wonder what we can say about it by looking at how ALL the various memes are interplaying, interacting, and otherwise changing reality. And that would be memes not just from earth's cultures but from all cultures in existence, if any, such as on other planets and throughout all of time (not that we're likely to have access to that sort of information anytime soon�maybe SETI will hit pay dirt soon). That's when perhaps we might gain some hints and ideas by jumping out of the dogma of any one specific religion and catch a sense for some of the overall tendencies. Evolution itself seems obviously to be one of those tendencies. But what else?

Dawkins introduced the term after writing that evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission

That definition seems a very good one to me. Oh, surely we can and should be awed by the double helix strand of DNA. But to become DNA-bound is to perhaps miss the forest for the trees. I agree very much with the way Dawkins has defined the meme. And one can probably see why there would be resistance to it, although I have no idea what, if any, resistance to this idea there is. But scientists who are genetic specialists surely might not like opening up the idea of traits being passed on via means that also require the study of sociology, psychology, and even � gasp � religion!

As far as the Christian meme is concerned, I think surely we can gain some insights into larger memes from all that Christianity has to say. But I don't think those larger memes can be, or are, described fully by just Christianity. And so what I think happens is that all the questions get sort of lumped into accepting dogma for dogma's sake or putting it all down to not, in principle, being able to understand the full concept of god, which, of course, we can't. But I, for one, think it useful to look at Christianity within the context of so many things, traditions, customs, and devices that are pointing us all toward some Ultimate meme. I think if we don't then, just like in genetics, our ideas and actions can become a little in-bred. I think what all the memes are showing us is that some integrative, holistic, and balanced approach is needed. And that's, of course, a difficult challenge for us finite humans. And so, until ready for that, I guess, we work the individual meme perhaps. Perhaps in those individual memes, if approached non-fundamentalistically, there is all we need to know in them. Much like a hologram, we may see the whole (even if that image isn't crystal-clear sharp) from just a part.

quote:

If you think your belief is only a choice you've made, then you still haven't gone very deeply into understanding the meaning of grace. No offense intended with that blunt remark, Eric, but I'm sure there's much more going on than just you making choices in this matter.

That is true, Phil. At first I KNEW it was grace but as time advances the memory fades and the old ways and thoughts return.

I have drifted back and forth in my reasoning. Some days I just don't think there is a God. So I feel I have to choose to believe in one. At least I can have peace in my mind even if just for a little while.

Also, some days I am convinced of God's existence. But why do my beliefs fluctuate with my feelings? Meme theory does nothing good to help me believe in God it only in my mind strengthens the argument against it.

So, yes I would say grace lead me to God but it remains a daily choice for me to stay with him.

Yes, there must be an ongoing choice for God on our part. I follow. And there are certainly forces at work within ourselves and the spiritual realm to discourage that choice.

I think part of what you're hitting on is the importance of intellectual conviction. There are times when feelings, memories and so forth fail, and so then our intellectual conviction must point the way. That's where good theology comes in, not to mention the attitudes formed through the regular practice of prayer and meditation.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
[qb] I have been studying meme theory and I have to say I am both mesmerized by it and appalled at the same time. I don't believe it but it leaves some things to think about. What is everyone else�s opinion?

There would also be a "Satan meme" if memes do exist. I am a Christian so I am biased. [/qb]

hey eric,

not sure if you read this one, but i found it insightful:

"Gatherer's (1998) demolition tour of mental memetics and the thought contagion metaphor is convincing and is to be applauded. Memetics organised around the interactions of thought contagions (e.g. Lynch 1996, 1998) is problematic because that interaction is neither observable nor measurable. This simple fact renders the thought contagion metaphor both conceptually vacuous and empirically redundant. It is certainly not by performing arbitrary mathematical manipulations and endowing the objects of introspection with contagious properties that will improve the status of a partial and misleading metaphor."


http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/1999/vol3/marsden_p.html

regards,

asher

Hey Asher, How/where have you been? I like that approach to memetics. Since I am surely not comfortable with the idea of them.

Am I the only one that thinks science is trying to use memetics to explain away the human mind like it is some form of virus?

Where is the beauty then?

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
[qb] Hey Asher, How/where have you been? I like that approach to memetics. Since I am surely not comfortable with the idea of them.

Am I the only one that thinks science is trying to use memetics to explain away the human mind like it is some form of virus?

Where is the beauty then? [/qb]

Hi Eric--
----
I'm not exactly comfortable with that article, on a second reading There seems to be a certain trend, probably inherited from deconstruction, to demolish ideas, as opposed to seeing where there are points of conjucture. For instance, how does memetics tie in with Jung's ideas about the collective unconscious? With psychoanalysis?

The more I go into layers within myself, the more I see that every theory is valid. I haven't studied memetics enough to see where/how it would connect, so I don't really have a comment(s).

I've been well...thanks. Searching for ways in which to conceptualize and understand. Depending on one theory, or on others seems to not be the way for me. It seems that one can never reach an end. For instance, beauty may be "good," or it may elict a sense of love, but it also may cover up other darker aspects of the personality. So, I tend to good/bad in terms of dialectics. In some sense, if we associate beauty with good feelings, we attempt to grow in that direction in relation to everything that is not beautiful. I continue to think that God is best "known" as the unknowable, as an openness which is beyond and yet contained in opposites. Beauty may make us aware/open to the unknowable, but ultimately it seems to occur in relationship to that which is not beautiful. This can be expanded into systems of knowing as well, I think. For instance, Islam may define itself against that which is Christian. Or Christianity may define itself (in one historical moment) as that which is not Islamic. It seems that there are hybridized spaces within the self and between bodies of knowledge that have always been ambivalent. I think this ambivalence can cut through the dialectics of self and the broader contexts (cultural, historical) which it is constrained in). Again, there may be modes of common experience - certain key subjective phases in the mystical journey that may be common.

But I think that it can only be integrated with that which is seen as other than itself through grace, which is beyond and immanant within it. This seems to be a universal agreement on this point. And I would argue that even advaita (properly understood and practiced) leads to integration. I am coming to see/learn that preoccupation with energies usually means lack of an ability to integrate and move to a new level. At times these states occur when a key developmental stage (thinking of Piaget's stages) has been arrested.

I don't think that grace can ever be known fully.

I think that it's helpful though, to use various contexts in order to understand self and it's relationship to other, and to the utterly Other.
Memetics may be a useful to this understanding. As is studies of culture (cultural studies/theory), politics, ancestory, tradition. I think that these fields of knowledge provide the necessary conceptual frameworks to grow. To make one receptive to healing and grace.

Asher, it sounds like you've still got a touch of the post-modern flu. (teasing) Your search is deep and probing, that's for sure.

That is very thought provoking, Asher.

I never looked at memes through Jungian eyes. That may prove to be an interesting approach.

Jung had many great things to say. I am just not that all familiar with his beliefs. Did he dismiss his experiences as psychological and not spiritual in the end? He definitely got very lost into his experiences at some point almost to the brink of insanity. I wonder if it was psychological or even some dark spiritual energies maybe.

I do think memetics has its place in science. But what I am really getting at is the atheist angle. I am seeing more and more "meme" approaches to dismiss God on the internet. It appears to be a tool they are using very often.

I just wish to understand it more. Could the human mind only be like a virus? Is it possible? That through million of years of mutation and evolution that the brain became the "host" of a meme? Is that all we are? When we die and the brain becomes inactive what of the meme then? What part dies and what part dies not?

I am referring to memetics in this aspect. Not so much at a religious level. Even though I topic�ed this thread as the Christian Meme. I want to understand the "mind meme" idea. Has anyone else heard of this?

quote:

In some sense, if we associate beauty with good feelings, we attempt to grow in that direction in relation to everything that is not beautiful. I continue to think that God is best "known" as the unknowable, as an openness which is beyond and yet contained in opposites. Beauty may make us aware/open to the unknowable, but ultimately it seems to occur in relationship to that which is not beautiful.

Had you said this a few months ago I would not have understood you. Yet I have had some personal life experiences lately that have had a rather sobering affect on me. That statement makes perfect sense.

For one, I see a beauty in not knowing God. But the search itself seems to be the beauty. I see God revealing himself everywhere. I see it in everything. The more I observe my universe the more I can observe the workings of My/Our God.

I see a beautiful God. I am amazed at the infinite level of intelligence that my God has. I see that God is very loving and intimate. I see how God has a romance for his universe. The careful crafting of the natural world leaves me in awe.

I appreciate God. I marvel at God. What I see around me in this world is what God has chosen to reveal about himself. I know there is much more to God that I will never know. Because I think to fully know God one would have to become him. This might be his only way to slowly reveal some of what he his. And what a marvelous thing! I am like a kid in a candy store. I want more!

I just feel honored that God thought enough about me to create me. That he also though enough about me to share these certain things about himself with me. He has revealed himself to the world. Yet most of the time the world takes no notice.

What an honor it is just to be alive enough for the shortest amount of time. We take the universe for granted. We have a wonderful opportunity to understand this certain "personality" of God. The "creator" God. There is so much more. Maybe this is the tip of the iceberg.

To see more of God all one must do is open the eyes. Even the eyes are the working of God.


This is the beauty for me. Sometimes I tremble when I think of it all. Sometimes I cry or laugh. It is all beyond human understanding. That is until he reveals more of himself. It will take forever and we will still no so little about him. But the thrill is in the search my friend!!

Why else would he make it this way? Why would we be curious creatures? Why would we have such complex sciences and forces in nature? The structure of everything in the scientific world is so complex and intelligent. What beauty it is!

I believe that is my form of worship. I feel when I admire the handiwork I am giving glory to God in my small way. It is never a dull moment my friend. Even the hard and painful times. They are experiences to. They have a sobering effect. The pain lets you know that you are alive.

quote:

Memetics may be a useful to this understanding. As is studies of culture (cultural studies/theory), politics, ancestory, tradition. I think that these fields of knowledge provide the necessary conceptual frameworks to grow. To make one receptive to healing and grace.

I concur.

Hi Eric--and Phil-
"I never looked at memes through Jungian eyes. That may prove to be an interesting approach.

Jung had many great things to say. I am just not that all familiar with his beliefs. Did he dismiss his experiences as psychological and not spiritual in the end?"

*I wouldn't be the one to ask. I can't even make an educated guess on this. I would go to someone like B.Roberts to understand Yung from a perspective that may be useful to you. The book "What is Self" seems to dialogue with Yung in a way that may be insightful to your experience.

*Yung went through a series of personal crises in his life after severing his connection with Freud. I think "Confrontation with the Unconscious" is a good place to begin to start, in regards to your questions.

"He definitely got very lost into his experiences at some point almost to the brink of insanity. I wonder if it was psychological or even some dark spiritual energies maybe."

*but, emerging out of his break with Freud and the ensuing existential crises he went through came his theory on the collective unconscious and archetypes...

"I do think memetics has its place in science. But what I am really getting at is the atheist angle. I am seeing more and more "meme" approaches to dismiss God on the internet. It appears to be a tool they are using very often."

*I don't think that science will never really accept memetics, because there is no way to prove it. There is much mainstream work which explores the culture/psychiatry interface. I was going to study memetics with a very open anthropology professor who understands energy, shakti as it relates to shamanism. I was mainly interested in exploring trauma through the lens of memetics. He advised me not to. In anthopology (the most likely field to apply memetics, I would assume) there is little acceptence of the concept.

"I just wish to understand it more. Could the human mind only be like a virus? Is it possible? That through million of years of mutation and evolution that the brain became the "host" of a meme? Is that all we are? When we die and the brain becomes inactive what of the meme then? What part dies and what part dies not?"

*you're saying two things: the mind is a virus and that the mind is a host. Does memetics suggest that the mind is both host and virus?


I am referring to memetics in this aspect. Not so much at a religious level. Even though I topic�ed this thread as the Christian Meme. I want to understand the "mind meme" idea. Has anyone else heard of this?

*maybe you can explain it (otherwise, it is hard to find a ground to talk about it).

"For one, I see a beauty in not knowing God. But the search itself seems to be the beauty. I see God revealing himself everywhere. I see it in everything. The more I observe my universe the more I can observe the workings of My/Our God."

*I agree, the search is beautiful.

*I cannot know God, or presume to know him. Because "I" exist in so many contexts. I am historically projected in time and culture. If I only know God in a part of my being, if he exists beyond, and not in the fabric of my history, my culture, than I do not know him in my totality. I don't know my own totality, I exist in contexts that I may not ever be aware of. So if I presume to know God, than I presume to know all the contexts that I exist in. I can only make an educated guess about who and what I am by examining the various contexts that I exist in. Finally, by allowing some higher action to inspire me to reconstruct and bind this these pieces into a narrative. It is this narrative which I place at the feet of my Creator. I don't know what I am or who he is. I know him in my faith and hope. God must exist multilaterally. I can only make myself open to the moment of recontructing. Perhaps, a postmodern flu, yes. But it is where I am, and I accept it and remain open to reconstructing/to inspiration which brings things into a whole which is only part of a larger whole endlessly projecting itself.

"I see a beautiful God. I am amazed at the infinite level of intelligence that my God has. I see that God is very loving and intimate. I see how God has a romance for his universe. The careful crafting of the natural world leaves me in awe."

*I recently don't feel God as intimate. He is changeable in everything. But the only constant that exists in me is faith in Him.


I appreciate God. I marvel at God. What I see around me in this world is what God has chosen to reveal about himself. I know there is much more to God that I will never know. Because I think to fully know God one would have to become him. This might be his only way to slowly reveal some of what he his. And what a marvelous thing! I am like a kid in a candy store. I want more!

*If God ever came to me as he does to you, I would tell him to come down into my roots and to saturate my history.

I just feel honored that God thought enough about me to create me. That he also though enough about me to share these certain things about himself with me. He has revealed himself to the world. Yet most of the time the world takes no notice.

*true gratitude is rare.

ps. the real problem I have with approaching everything through the concept/inspiration/experience/realization of the whole is that the parts (which are like metonymns-infinitely complex, unique, contradictory) become lost, blasted in the "monadic," as it were. I want to know these pieces, to love and cherish them so much that they become bound together by another force. The intricacies, the complexity, the webs of meaning so often become lost when the whole is emphasized...(not any direct reference to you post, just musing here.)

I will try to dig up some things if I can find them. The suggestion was that the brain was an organ that evolved to support the ever growing mind (meme). The meme or mind was a virus and the brain was the medium in which it exists.

quote:

ps. the real problem I have with approaching everything through the concept/inspiration/experience/realization of the whole is that the parts (which are like metonymns-infinitely complex, unique, contradictory) become lost, blasted in the "monadic," as it were. I want to know these pieces, to love and cherish them so much that they become bound together by another force. The intricacies, the complexity, the webs of meaning so often become lost when the whole is emphasized...(not any direct reference to you post, just musing here.)

That is a very deep level of self understanding that I could only dream of. If I could analyze myself with that much detail I would know myself to well I think.

I also see God as intimate in the Christ. If one were to believe in Christianity.

I guess one of my reason for understanding myself in this way is that self is broken, fragmented, disjunctive. I agree with Lacan that the self is ultimately a social, political, historical construct, that we are born into a language matrix which covers over our true self. We see ourselves reflected in a mirror as a whole and this illusory wholeness becomes the basis for all our relationships. Other Freudians would completely disagree with this, suggesting that the human ego is a necessary construct. That fragmentation is a sign of neurosis etc. That a healthy ego is a sign of "health." I am beginning to disagree with this statement. Lacan is the only Freudian who admits a "true" self. If one is already fragmented and knows how much of a lie the social ego is, than one cannot simply use social, or religious principles to create an ego...to reconstruct an ego. What makes one whole? What binds a self together? I assume that the true self is bound together by a principle of love. Since I am not at this stage, I use imagination as the binding principle of my life. This would suggest that I construct my identity in relation to a particular vocation. Let us say some sort of writer. I wonder than if one examines the principle of synthesis if they can begin to divine their vocation - the vocation of their true self. Surely this must occur after the self falls to pieces. Finally, imagination can blend to other subjective states. It can catch glimpses of love, but cannot yet integrate these yet.

I tend to emphasize one piece of information at the expense of the totality. The totality (God) seems to me to be just a perception. Surely, one can not know everything about oneself, but they can know enough to make an educated guess. It seems to me that what binds these pieces is the imaginative process (instead of using phenomenology ahistorically, perhaps I need to use it to bind the various contexts into a whole.) That whole does not become reified into "truth" but becomes a means to understand other wholes. To attact wholes to ones self that are able to see the intricices of the parts. How wholes weave together into a mosaic, or how they contract into knots. But I can never really know another. I can only piece together parts and then imaginatively (phenomenologically) allow these parts to synthesize. As soon as I close myself off to this sythesis, or over emphasize one part, I become locked in a system which creates me according its laws. But there must be imaginative laws, the underside of delusion, which are involved in blending. Once I am blended - once I have known a whole, I will tend to see wholes. We may miss out on suffering. How suffering works to break down, to fragment in order to rebuilt according to a higher principle. Off topic... I am just struggling with this notion of how I know what I know. I am trying to build the most open ended structure which is true to all aspects of my understanding. This is the most a human ego can do. The synthesizing principle is inspiration. I trust that synthesizing principle after I have done the work of providing the contexts for a particular issue, in this case the "self."

What does this have to do with memetics? Heh.

One could see Imagination blended with Christ, as the synthesizing principle. Christ does not exist in a closed circle. When I think of Christ there are endless associations. Christ exists in a linguistic matrix. He works as best as he can through this matrix, but he cannot be known as he is in himself. We can know him, perhaps, as a principle of blending which is moving towards greater wholes.

If one were to approach this whole through Christ before one is ready, one becomes unbalanced, I am thinking. It is too high a principle for one to integrate. One can aspire to that. But one must follow this synthesizing principle (after one has fallen down and shattered). This principle is a window for higher and higher subjective states which we call grace. Later they may become unrecognizable as we adapt.

A key question for me is this: how is this synthesizing principle of my life (Imagination, in my case) being "translated" into self-other, self-culture, self-history, self-country, self-God, self-politics, self-art etc. ? How do these selves dialogue with one another, how do they interact? Where do they knot up, contradict? If they contradict than I must go back to the drawing board...

"I guess one of my reason for understanding myself in this way is that self is broken, fragmented, disjunctive. I agree with Lacan that the self is ultimately a social, political, historical construct, that we are born into a language matrix which covers over our true self."


Once again, Asher. The self understanding you have reached amazes me. Some of the things you say I have experienced. Others I can only imagine with deep thought and can barely get a glimpse even then.

Do you find yourself locked inside of deep intellectual thoughts at times? I know I do. Sometimes I am afraid I will get lost. There is always a fear that I don't want to go further.

Once I see the rabbit hole and start to understand it then I forget it completely and start the search over again. This pattern will not end sometimes.

This is as far as I get when it comes to probing my mind.

I believe that we are not really ourselves. That "Eric" is a collection of experiences from childhood to present day. This is expressed as the personality of "Eric". When Eric dies so will all of this. But there is something of the self that is not Eric that will live on somehow.

Do you concur?

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
[qb] "I believe that we are not really ourselves. That "Eric" is a collection of experiences from childhood to present day. This is expressed as the personality of "Eric". When Eric dies so will all of this. But there is something of the self that is not Eric that will live on somehow.

Do you concur? [/qb]

Eric,

Yes, I agree in part. But you also live on through your words, your deeds, your actions. "I" appearing in this moment in history alters history. So thought-making is never hermetic - multiple voices surround it. That atmosphere is social and political etc. A historical moment dies or gets rewritten in a new body. A body is an archive for key moments in collective history. If your thoughts don't mean anything to some higher self, than one is not participating in the making of history; history is making you in some sense - even if you are blissfully unaware on another "higher" level. You can say, perhaps, that some transcendental self is making you. You can witness all thoughts and say - to hell with it. But this seems to me to be narrow. There is a historical reason why subjectivities become fragmented, for example. The experiences of my life belong to a larger history and that larger history forms a dialectic with my body. There is no escaping the social and historical context(s) that live through me. They cannot be shed. I concur that there is a transcendental self, or a spiritual "I" that has to mediate through these various (potentially infinite) contexts.

I concur that there is a transcendental self, or a spiritual "I" that has to mediate through these various (potentially infinite) contexts.

I concur as well, and that this "I" (subject of attention) is the True Self, and it is a "constant" through all our experiences, and the ineffable presence that enables us, when accessing memories, to know that they are my memories and not simply events. This Self transcends the contents of conscious, including self-image (which is where people usually look to "find themselves"), and is immediately accessible to us if we "just-look" and "notice" the "fact" of an "observer." If this all sounds Eastern and akin to enlightenment, I'd agree with that as well, which tells us something about the true nature of those experiences. This "I" is not-God, however, but the spiritual consciousness of the soul, imo.

quote:

and is immediately accessible to us if we "just-look" and "notice" the "fact" of an "observer."

Would this be the same as being aware of your awareness or is this a deeper observation?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I concur that there is a transcendental self, or a spiritual "I" that has to mediate through these various (potentially infinite) contexts.

I concur as well, and that this "I" (subject of attention) is the True Self, and it is a "constant" through all our experiences, and the ineffable presence that enables us, when accessing memories, to know that they are my memories and not simply events. This Self transcends the contents of conscious, including self-image (which is where people usually look to "find themselves"), and is immediately accessible to us if we "just-look" and "notice" the "fact" of an "observer." If this all sounds Eastern and akin to enlightenment, I'd agree with that as well, which tells us something about the true nature of those experiences. This "I" is not-God, however, but the spiritual consciousness of the soul, imo. [/qb]

Phil, yes that does sound eastern.

The experiences which are accessible to us are limited by the structures which we adhere to. When those structures of consciousness, or modes of experiencing break down, new experiences open up to us. New psychological structures (with their inherent organizing principles) are attracted to a new center(s). Underlying these new structures are deep rooted, unconscious structures for organizing knowledge. When the structures of the first layer break then one reaches epistemes, which in turn have their own oragnizing principles and which can also form and reform into an infinite array of combinations.
Worlds within worlds. A labyrinth. Yung's Sea Journey. A structure cannot be imposed on consciousness, but consciousness organizes itself according to its own principle(s). The structure must be firm, but not rigid so as not to admit new structures. Surely a point must come when structure and consciousness (also the process of building and breaking) become synchronized.

Asher, what you're describing is very much akin to Don Beck's idea of vMemes, which form the basis for the various levels of Spiral Dynamics. Do a search on this board for the few threads we have going on it.

I also have a 40 min. instructional DVD I did recently, and converted to a Quicktime MP4 file. You can grab it at http://heartlandspirituality.o...OP-netstream.mp4.zip
It's a 21 mb download, so you'll need broadband for that. Once downloaded, unzip (decompress) the movie, open Quicktime Player (http://apple.com/quicktime if you don't have it), then from the File > Open menu, choose the mp4 file and enjoy . . . I think you'll like it very much.