Revolutionary Tuesday: An evil genius zots the dude with three memes

#1 Posted by Elly on April 21st, 2009 10:27 pm | link

*considers*

Discordianism: There is no Meme 3, only Meme 1. Sucks to be you! :)

Buddhism: Where we are is suffering, but we can ESCAPE!

Science: We can make the world COOLER!!

The Usual Error: We can FIX your relationship suffering!

… does seem to be a common meme…

#2 Posted by Pace on April 22nd, 2009 12:02 am | link

Buddhism is spot on. Very Meme 3.

I disagree that science that the Usual Error Project are Meme 3, though. They’re both trying to make things better, but I don’t think either of them presume that we start out in an inherently broken state that needs saving.

Discordianism, unsurprisingly, defies categorization. (:

#3 Posted by elfin on April 22nd, 2009 9:33 am | link

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the characterization of Buddhism. Buddhism says “you have been taught by your culture to suffer and to turn your back on your essential goodness; you can unlearn that teaching and choose to live with your eyes open.” It starts from the belief that you are not broken (“there is nothing wrong with you.”)

My main concern with Quinn’s work (which you seem to be embracing) is a form of egocentricity on the author’s part: “the religions I see around me are saying X, so all major belief systems are saying X”. It’s The Usual (Meta) Error. My other concern is the almost evangelical fervor shown around Ishmael. “readishmael.com” reminds me of the more breathless efforts by Ron Hubbard’s people.

#4 Posted by nw on April 22nd, 2009 12:24 pm | link

So if I read this correctly, it isn’t ALL humans that are inherently flawed, only those humans who have been in contact with agrarian societies. ;)

I don’t buy this. I think humans are humans. There is plenty of evidence in the archaeological and anthropological record of violence and wars amongst hunter-gatherer societies. Nor is this surprising, as we see similar acts of territorial violence in other hominids. Agrarian (and industrial) societies may facilitate this, and so we may see much greater extremes, but they’re hardly the source.

We’re not “flawed”, we’re perfect at being humans. If we want to change our standards to reduce suffering, that’s great — and, honestly, I think we’re trending in that direction — but I’m not sure how much a fall-from-grace narrative helps with that.

#5 Posted by Pace on April 22nd, 2009 6:28 pm | link

@elfin: Wow! I’m thrilled to know that I’ve misunderstood Buddhism. Can you point me toward something good to read that talks about starting from the belief that there’s nothing wrong with you? As for Quinn, yes, we do agree with a lot of his ideas, but we’re not die-hard evangelical Quinnies. I don’t mind the evangelical fervor around Ishmael, though. I mean, it’s kind of amusing if they’re touting it as the one right book to read, since Quinn says often that there is no one right way to live, but still, being passionate about making the world a better place is something I wholeheartedly support. (:

@nw: *confused* Wait, it sounds like you’re saying the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. I don’t think that humans (or most humans) have become flawed in the past 10,000 years. I think that most humans have fallen prey to the illusion that they are inherently flawed. I’m not talking about a fall from grace, I’m talking about a state of grace and an illusion of a fall.

#6 Posted by nw on April 22nd, 2009 6:48 pm | link

Now I’m confused. I got the impression that you were making the case that war, rape, and genocide have really only been a factor in the past 10,000 years, because of the propagation of a meme that now effects 99+% of the world’s population, and the only hope is to adopt your paradigm. That sounds like a fall-from-grace/redemption scenario to me, but perhaps I have misinterpreted.

Of course, that isn’t to say that a fall-from-grace scenario of some sort is inherently false. I’m not really convinced of it, but the simple fact that variations on that theme are propagated by a bunch of religions isn’t inherently evidence against it.

#7 Posted by elfin on April 22nd, 2009 11:13 pm | link

@Pace: This is pretty condensed, but hits all the highlights: http://www.cherihuber.com/fabric1.html

She does point out, as you say, that “most humans have fallen prey to the illusion that they are inherently flawed.” Where that diverges from Quinn’s approach is it doesn’t try to pin the emergence of the process (cultural conditioning) on a specific event (e.g. the agricultural revolution), but instead says “see the process, learn to step back when it speaks (i.e. don’t take it personally), and accept that you are perfect as you are.”

A lot of people fall on the same basic spiritual truths and wrap them in different forms. I’ve come to prefer the “do your inner Work” approach* to the “external forces made you bad and external systems will make you good” approach. The former is harder to sell than the latter, alas. Over a decade as a Christian, and looking at the foundations of the church with my eyes open, pretty much innoculated me to someone else “saving” me from original sin, original memes, the heartbreak of psoriasis, etc.

By the way, have you ever read Theodore Sturgeon’s “Godbody”? I think you’d find it interesting for all the philosophical reasons we’re discussing here.

And I have to say I’m grateful for this conversation. :)

Be well,

- elfin

* Which, if you know much about T. Thorn Coyle’s way of teaching, explains why I’m studying with her.

#8 Posted by scwizard on April 24th, 2009 3:04 pm | link

Meme 4: You are broken because western culture is broken and you were raised in western culture. By rejecting western culture and accepting our culture (which includes meme 4) you can become fixed.

How about that one. People throw that one at me a lot.

#9 Posted by Elly on April 24th, 2009 3:37 pm | link

*giggles* Meme 4 is a good description of how I felt about the video :)

Then again, I’ve always been a firm believer that human nature is fundamentally *neutral*, and I’ve yet to find a religion or philosophy that really supports this. They all strike me as either “we are fundamentally good, but must overcome external obstacles” or else “we are fundamentally evil, and must receive external salvation” – this is also the reason Buddhism immediately came to mind as not being Meme3-compliant :)

#10 Posted by Pace on April 24th, 2009 6:23 pm | link

@nw: Ha! I hadn’t seen it from that perspective. That’s pretty funny. I guess I can sort of see it that way, except that I’m not evangelizing my paradigm. I don’t claim to have the One True Way. I think there are lots of paradigms that would be better than the current one, but I do think that the current one is destructive and needs to change.

@elfin: Thanks for the link and the Godbody recommendation. No, I haven’t read it, but I’ve put it on my to-read list. And I twinkle furiously to what you said about basic spiritual truths wrapped in different forms. Did you catch the post about my thoughts on that? http://paceandkyeli.com/2009/01/23/religion-spirituality-and-personal-growth/ And more twinkles to the gratefulness. I’m happy to have met you. (:

@scwizard: I think there’s an important difference between “This thing is bad for you, let’s stop doing it” and “This thing is bad for you, let’s stop doing it and do it My Way instead.”

#11 Posted by scwizard on April 25th, 2009 7:20 pm | link

@Pace: You are correct, that’s why The Usual Error is pretty cool book, while, for instance, Ishmael is not.

@Elly: I’ve yet to find any firm evidence that this thing known as “human nature” exists. So yeah, that’s my view on the matter.

#12 Posted by Elly on April 27th, 2009 1:09 am | link

@scwizard: Depends on how exactly you define “human nature.” There are certain strong psychological and cognitive tendencies our species exhibits. It’s sort of like a room full of air particles: it may be hard to predict an individual particle, but the air as a whole follows some very predictable behaviors. Humans have a lot of patterns that seem to transcend socialization and culture, and a lot more that respond to, influence, or come from that socialization and culture.

Basically, “human nature” exists in the same sense that one can define the “nature” of a computer program or an animal.

#13 Posted by scwizard on April 29th, 2009 6:10 am | link

@Elly: Yeah, you’re right about the tendencies, or else there would be no field of psychology. And saying that there’s some that transcend socialization and culture is a strong claim.

I don’t like the term human nature though, because it implies a number of squicky things. For example is someone that doesn’t exhibit the usual tendencies still human? Are such tendencies a innate part of the species?

The correct answer to those questions is no on both counts, but calling human genetic trends “human nature” implies the answer is yes.

Another way to look at things, is at what point does a genetic trend cease becoming a trend and become “human nature”?

If 99% of humans exhibit some genetic trait is that trait “human nature”? What about 95%? 90%? 70%? 50%? There’s no bright line.

So I think it’s fundamentally incorrect to say “humans are x” or “being x is human nature” and I’d prefer “x is a trend among humans” or preferably “I’ve met a bunch of x people” (in the case where you don’t have access to numbers, which is pretty much all of the time).