GENE <> MEME

As posted in Hyperborea by...

Satyr wrote:

Genetically, culturally, heterogeneous socioeconomic systems use uniformity promoting ideologies to attain psychological homogeneity.

As posted in Hyperborea by...

Satyr wrote:

De Benoist wrote:

From [the pagan] perspective, culture does not represent an absolute break with nature, nor can culture be reduced to being just nature. Culture is nothing other than the nature man has given himself by instituting it as such, in the act of humanization, in order to 'pursue' his biological nature in a self conscious manner.

"On Being a Pagan"

As posted in Hyperborea by...

Satyr wrote:

Starting premise: addiction is to body what obsession is to mind: gene to meme.
Same causes/effects within different contexts. [ MANifesto: Word Wars – Meme & Gene Dynamics]
Additional factor: two kinds of need: lack & excess; the latter is the by-product of the former, from the perspective of a living organism awakening to its own condition, viz., its awakening to the state of existential Flux, i.e., constant interactivity of ordered & chaotic energies. The absence of absolutes is what is constantly being evaluated, intuitively or lucidly, as lacking: no omniscience, no omnipotence, no omnipresence, and no absolute order. An unceasing, relentless, fluctuation, interpreted in degrees, relative to what is needed/desired, by an organism that is no more than a manifestation of ordering and is dependent on all forms of order, i.e., patterns. Consequently, when one addiction is overcome another takes its place, or addiction converts to obsession and/or obsession converts back to addiction. The physical precedes the mental.
To be more precise, no “overcoming a vice/virtue” is possible without a pre-emptive replacement vice/virtue being present.
Addiction/Obsession is defined as any need/desire that decreases the individual organism's relationship with reality, i.e., reduction of its potentials in space/time – probabilities within an expanding field of possibilities. We must make this distinction otherwise we must include feeding in the category of addictions/obsessions if we wish to remain consistent, viz., eating is a form of addiction/obsession that increases organic potentials – probabilities within a field of expanding possibilities.
What is exposed, in all cases, is the relationship of the particular organism with its environment. Hunger/Ennui – body/mind – are expressions of this relationship – the world is either “too much” to cope with, or “not enough” to gratify.
Stress is the product of the body's reaction to fluctuations, e.g., hunger is lack, experienced as physical stress; boredom is lack experienced as mental stress.
When physical need is decreased mental need increases; when mental need decreases physical need increases. When the body produces excess energies the mind must expunge them, otherwise it suffers the strains of their accumulating physical pressures; when the mind produces excess energies the body must expunge them, otherwise it suffers the stress of their accumulating mental pressures – libidinal energies are psychosomatic excess energies demanding to be expunged.
Body craves what it lacks, and must continuously replenish, due to fluctuating interactivity and the attrition this produces. If it is successful it accumulates excess energies to direct towards growth, or play, or reproduction. If it cannot purge such energies effectively, or quickly enough, because of environmental factors the mind attempts to deal with them through alternate methods, such as art, and/or via artificial methods, such as sports, and pornography, or it must deal with them using narcotics, alcohol etc.; another effective method is to obsess over trivial and/or unattainable objectives, generating constant and unending libidinal expenditures. Nihilistic ideals can serve as an alternative to the aforementioned by providing unrealistic conceptions to sublimate and redirect libidinal energies – relief, calm and comfort is the predictable and certain reward. Unrealistic, unattainable objectives – in the form of romantic ideals and ideologies – can offer relief to minds with no other way to purge their accumulating libidinal energies.

What do gens & memes have in common?
In brief:
They are both simplifications/generalizations, i.e., abstractions of experiences, memories of interactions - reduced to an iterating algorithm.
They are both synthesis of patterns, i.e., energies with a consistent, repeating, predictability, interpreted as matter/energy by a conscious organism, a.k.a. a behavioural consistency.

The common ground is the term "energy", which should be used in the original Greek understanding, and should not be considered a singularity since it refers to multiplicities which the human brain must reduce to singularities.
What does energy - εν έργο - imply?
More than dynamism, it implies process, i.e., movement/ motive, or interactivity - a "towards…"
"Flux" as I like to call it, to also include unpredictable, inconsistent, energies, i.e., chaotic, or random if you will.

There is in fact no mind/body schisms - nor can there ever be.
There is only a mental defensive measure isolating itself form the physical, form the body - a self-imposed noetic quarantine - schizophrenia - developed to protect the organism from a new source of need/suffering - a source only self-awareness exposes it to.
Self-consciuosness necessitates, for many, a nihilistic defence, using semiotics to theoretically sever its connections with the physical, the body; refusing to identify with it.
see the current transsexual movement = mind/body dissonance produced by the mind's own intentions to disassociate with the physical.

A romance can take the form of a memorable bromance when in the contexts of memetic reproduction - no less life-altering than any common heterosexual romance.
Memetic reproduction knows no nature based limitations when it negates natural order - sex and gender are not an issue when it comes to ideological copulations.

It comes to pass that a young, impressionable man-child, lacking a father-figure - having romanticized his absence for the better part of his short life - will come across a domineering male - with his own father issues, expressed via hyper-masculine displays that easily seduce an impressionable young mind - and an homo-erotic relationship will ensue between adopted son and surrogate father.
One in the role of the dominated - female - and the other in the role of the dominating - male; "lovers" in the Greek sense of the term, i.e. student/teacher, mentee/mentor.
At first, when pathos is new and at its peek - novelty fueling its high - the loved-one can do no wrong - intercourse is passionate and frequent, each enjoying the penetrating insights of the other, and submitting to pleasuring interventions from the other; indulging in pro-creative experimental acts, through many a night, darkness enveloping them in a private universe with only each other to reflect off of.
As is often the case, an extreme high is always followed by an equally extreme low - especially when the 'high' is artificial and a product of intoxicating chemical potency.
Over time the effects dissipate and sobriety gradually returns the mind to its normal state - a state now experienced as an intolerable down.
The veil is lifted from thine eyes and you see thy lover as he is, and not as you thought he was when in the throws of erotic pathos.
Magic, no matter how strong, dissipates; pretences and lies that were once seductive and charming become intolerably banal and transparent.
The lover experiences disillusionment, disappointment, and then anger. He who once triggered such welcomed intellectual ecstasies is now the source of unwanted reproaches - more so when the relationship was based on hypocrisy and lies, i.e., Afro-Asiatic superstitions, obscurantism and mysticism - extraordinary promises, exotic gifts, supernatural potentials all fall away, and the mind is stripped down, succumbing to a 'reality- check' as devastating as the gifts were once was convincing, symbolically promising salvation and profound existential awakenings - relief from mortality.

Such relationships experience a break-up as equally emotional as their original make-up.
The submissive one leaving with the memories of the domineering one's linguistic seeds still swimming in his mind-womb - semiotically impregnated by his ex-lover's ideas/ideals - forced to carry them to term, towards their ultimate fruition - the ex-lovers brain-child, to be raised, as single parents often do, as if it were exclusively his own - with his own values.

My use of meme has about as much to do with Dawkins - who I've never read - as my use of ego has to do with the Hebraic use and understanding of the term "ego".
A word need not correspond to an icon's/idol's use, but only refer to an observable, testable, phenomenon in the world.
When words are contained within an authority they trap the mind beneath a proxies necessity.
The primary function of words/symbols is to connect an individual's mind, and its internal abstractions, to external phenomena. When they connect to another mind's abstractions then the individual subordinates himself to its authority and words/symbols become representations of his subservience.

The U.S. has become the most recent attempt to repeat Christianity's relative successful synthesis of two incompatible world views - that of Hellenism and Hebraism, i.e., Abrahamism.
Christianity did so by concealing the emerging paradoxes and contradictions within Judaic occultism and semiotic obscurantism, eventually splintering into two variants, e.g., Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium, when Rome had lost the vitality of its Hellenic spirit.
The US and its world dominating [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] lays claim to Rome's legacy - wearing the garment - but is Judaic to the core (Judeo-Protestant), producing caricaturist interpretations of Heathenism, derogatorily referred to as Paganism, and such extreme corruptions as modern day Satanism that ridicules what it cannot understand with its, often, honest imitations.

It attracts the usual kinds of peoples wanting to harmonize incompatible memes, founded on genetic divergence and miscegenation.
We might say the U.S. is to Rome what Byzantium, and the Holy Roman Empire was - laying claim to a legacy it can only imitate and contradict when under duress - like an actor who cannot maintain his performance when he is pressured and nervous.

Currently a secular form of Christianity is being sought by the myriads of lost souls who have lost all trust in their own heritage, or simply lost touch with it. Something that gets rid of overt monotheism but retains its singularity by renaming it using pseudo-scientific terminologies - this is progressiveness, or modernity, that encompasses post-modernism and the enlightenment into an updated synthesis.
To make it less obvious new terminology is applied to repackage the same Christian ruse, appearing Roman and thinking/behaving as as a devout Abrahamic.
Marxism was another unsuccessful attempt at this project of re-synthesis, but it disregarded the spiritual component, failing to evaluate tis importance, so it never pretended to be Rome's "rightful heir" but tis rightful replacement - this did not suffice for a populace that needed singularities to cope with their existential anxieties and worldly sufferings. When god was declared dead, they needed, demanded a new one.
In an uncertain, fluctuating cosmos the masses need a certainty, even if it is a lie; an absolute to find hope in, and Marxism replaced the one-god with a faceless State, and the Old Testament with the Communist Manifesto, and an evil Devil with a Capitalist, which was not enough to inspire and to maintain fanatical loyalties.
New attempts are being made, replacing "love" - the Christian mystical reinterpretation and idealization of the singularity - with new updated ambiguous abstractions - distancing themselves from Christianity's current state.
They trick themselves that they are creating the new when all they are doing is renaming what has proven to be successful, upgrading it and distancing it from its past atrocities and failed superstitions.
Its target audience is always the same as those being called out to on the Statue of Liberty....the world's lost, ill, desperate....the meek looking for a 21st century Messiah to finally lead them to their final salvation.

But all these attempts are domed to fail, because just as incompatible genes cannot survive without external suppressive interventions, so too incompatible memes, i.e., ideas, ideals, ideologies, morals, cannot survive in reality without external suppressive interventions, or without contradicting their own core principles - self-deciet is essential to their emergence and survival within a world they completely or partially - selectively - reject and deny, i.e., nullify - the degree of the lie proportional to the degree of their ideological/spiritual (memetic) world denial.

When natural selection mechanisms, such as culling, are excluded from a population, unfit genetic mutations gradually accumulate and replicate, risking its survival.
When all "deserve" to reproduce then reproduction becomes meaningless; inferior genes propagate and are disseminated, lowering the entire group's quality.
When natural selection mechanisms, such as discrimination and ridicule, are excluded from dialogue, insane ideologies and absurdities accumulate, stupidity reproduces and spreads, cynicism grows, and men-children take over discourse reducing it to their level of understanding.

Genes to Memes.

One bad driver suffices to cause a traffic jam; one child to reduce adults to infantile behaviours; one woman to reduce men to hormonal primates vying for her attentions; one idiot to reduce all discourse to inane babbling and hedonistic exchanges; one tiny fly to ruin gallons of milk; one tiny speck of faecal matter to make a meal unappetizing; one slip-up to permanently destroy trust; one clown to make it all a circus act...

The weak will always demand parity because they cannot earn their place - they must be given the "right" simply because they were born, and can speak, and have a view they can share - are capable of logos.

It's why the Greeks had symposiums.
My symposium is held in Hyperborea....

Ta, Ta,

It's unfortunate for desperate degenerates, but Hellenism - philosophies ideologies - and Judaism - philosophies and ideologies - do not mix. They are diametrically opposite world-views, expressing contrary motives and methods.
For example, there is nothing Messianic about Hellenism - it does not propose any world saving mission, i.e. goal, objective, and although it necessarily posits absolutes - representing human abstractions - and it may even entertain perspectives that propose them, it does not deify them, implying disbelief is a state of inhumanity or evilness.
Judaism deified itself, in the form of an ideal, i.e., an abstraction that can at once claim to be a meme and a gene, as is required by circumstances to conceal what they are; their narrative concerning "choseness" describes their historical rejection by all tribes, until they made of themselves a one-god that accepted themselves as what they are: parasitical survival strategies adopted as a higher form of farming/foraging.

Many are now desperately trying to harmonize their Abrahamic reality, with their Hellenic/Roman Idealism, splintering mind/body into a dissonant state - schizophrenia - requiring obscurantism and occultism to conceal the rifts - paradoxes contradictions, conflicts.
Their "chosen" method is using semiotics to twist meaning by first detaching the concepts they refer to from any thing real, i.e., anything experienced, falsifiable, empirical, tangible, physical - of the body.
Addictions and obsessions can be traced back to this mind/body dissonance that has to be chemically reduced out of consciousness - forcing it into unconscious states that find expression in sexual fetishism, through art preferences, through dreams and fantasies etc.
A state of extreme esoteric conflicts producing internal stress/anxiety must be internalized - repressed - or it must be projected outward and externalized, absolving the individual of their effects - but always unsuccessfully, because the conflict between mind - convictions - and body - impulses - is organic and as long as brain manifests mind it remains the consequence of such dissonances.

As posted in Hyperborea by...

Satyr wrote:

Genes are a code carriers; they are the code given a substantial form, i.e., intangible interactivity given a tangible form. Codes represent the collection of all past experiences passed-on as raw data, reduced to an algorithm, i.e., a representational sequence of causes & effects stored as biological imitative sequences, transmutating fluid interactions into static forms. How this data unfolds and is applied is also part of the code’s instructions; its stored memory.
The meme is not different in this aspect, but is an externalization of memory in the form of semiotics. With the meme language (math being a language) is its representational raw data, also transmitting the instructions of interpreting them – “medium is the message” – directing/informing memory to apply itself in real time – to unfold within dynamic space/time. [ MANifesto: Word Wars – Meme & Gene Dynamics]
A necessary reduction, i.e., abstraction – meaning simplification/generalization, i.e., reduction of dimensional probabilities – with a high cost, because “much is lost in translation” and what is passed-on is what has had a severe impact – either positive and/or negative – on the organism.

Satyr wrote:

When natural selection mechanisms, such as culling, are excluded from a population, unfit genetic mutations gradually accumulate and replicate, risking its survival.

Natural selection reduces bio diversity by killing off everything that doesn't fit into a part of the ecosystem.

Killing everything 'weak' wont fix it, and things like butterflies will always be weak yet they still have an existence.

Darwinism suggests that killing everyone unfit is natural and good.
Nature-Nazis.

If I ran around with a gun shooting unarmed [and unarmed = unfit]
people, at random, am i doing them a favor ?

Random mutations are usually negative.

Dan~~ wrote:

Satyr wrote:

When natural selection mechanisms, such as culling, are excluded from a population, unfit genetic mutations gradually accumulate and replicate, risking its survival.

Natural selection reduces bio diversity by killing off everything that doesn't fit into a part of the ecosystem.

Killing everything 'weak' wont fix it, and things like butterflies will always be weak yet they still have an existence.

Butterflies have evolved a niche survival strategy.
Yet, they are vulnerable because of their specialization - delicate.

Do you think of yourself a " human butterfly" - beautiful and delicate?

Dan~~ wrote:

Darwinism suggests that killing everyone unfit is natural and good.
Nature-Nazis.

Nazis were not a representation of nature....Nazis did not invent nature.
But they have become the new term for "evil"...for those obsessed with Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" - it's impressive how the mind can contradict itself by changing terminologies. Self-Deciet is another survival strategy.
Those who are convinced they've overcome Abrahamism and its binary concepts have simply change the lingo.
Selfish Genes, I think Dawkins coined the term - never read the man, never will - so this must mean Selfsh-Memes are also possible.
An ideology self-propagates, despite the man and his genetic impulses - especially when it is nihilistic.  

Genes to Memes...indicates a sequence.
Ideologies emerge and extend from genetics, adding and subtracting, selecting in accordance with an ideal.

Dan~~ wrote:

If I ran around with a gun shooting unarmed [and unarmed = unfit]
people, at random, am i doing them a favor ?

Is natural selection random?

I'll give you a hint...
Path-of-Least Resistance is fundamental.
When predators hunt they do not do it for fun, or to justify an ideal, they do it to survive...and they do not hunt randomly.

Dan~~ wrote:

Random mutations are usually negative.

Mutations are either advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral.
When sheltering permits disadvantageous mutations to flourish and propagate they compound and accumulate until the entire herd is reduced to unfitness.
Man compensates with technologies, but these do not suffice. They eventually become overwhelmed by interventions that require further interventions, until they bleed the system dry....and it collapses.
Wars used to substitute for decades of rampant human reproduction, but these are no longer efficient.
Now diseases will do the job, because overpopulation and confined environments are where diseases, and the parasites that carry them from host to host, flourish - nature is self-correcting.
Men lose interest in se when the herd grows to an unsustainable size; mutations increases that contradict heterosexual reproduction; mental and physical dysfunctions inhibit reproductions, on matter how many technological interventions man invents; intelligence decreases, because there is no adversity to maintain it, and so the sophistication of the system becomes unsustainable etc.  


Take it out of your Judeo-Christian ethics and your subjective emotional reactions, and try to see it as an indifferent observer - as objectively as possible.

Mutations are either advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral. wrote:

Mutations are either advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral.
When sheltering permits disadvantageous mutations to flourish and propagate they compound and accumulate until the entire herd is reduced to unfitness.

Although i dont entirely believe in natural selection / death based selection,
i do believe in sexual selection.
It's not easy having a family.
That difficulty can serve as a filter.
I'd hope the people would be selective about their mate.

"Do you think of yourself a "human butterfly" - beautiful and delicate?"

Nope. I think I have some bad genes and some good genes.
It makes achievement more difficult but not impossible.
I miss the vitality i had when i was young.

i would day a woman's intuitive sexual choices are part of natural selection....not requiring violence and exterminations - gradually filtering out genetically unfit males, and currently - in systems dominated by nihilistic ideologies nd dogmas - filtering it socially unfit males, in accordance to a dominating ideology, which a woman is indoctrinated into.
This sets-up an interesting conflict in such females, between mind/body - their physical impulses judging in accordance with primal genetic standards and their minds, their ideological impulses, judging in accordance with the prevailing socioeconomic, moral standards....a dissonance many have wrongly called "feminine mystique".
It's a form of schizophrenia - creating confusions in many average females.

When they are young, and the indoctrination has not taken hold, their physical impulses decide - but, over time, and due to pragmatic considerations, she gradually changes, "matures", and she begins to judge and choose mates accordingly.

Mutations are either advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral. wrote:

Mutations are either advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral.
When sheltering permits disadvantageous mutations to flourish and propagate they compound and accumulate until the entire herd is reduced to unfitness.

Is my moniker like a curse?
Ha!!!
Do not speak the devil's name....

Dan~~ wrote:

Although i dont entirely believe in natural selection / death based selection,
i do believe in sexual selection.
It's not easy having a family.
That difficulty can serve as a filter.
I'd hope the people would be selective about their mate.

Read above....I posted again.
Natural selection is not always about violence and killing.
Sometimes its feminine in its cruel indifference, as it condemns you to oblivion and denies you a future.
It excludes while comforting you with kindness, understanding and motherly empathy.

Dan~~ wrote:

"Do you think of yourself a "human butterfly" - beautiful and delicate?"

Nope. I think I have some bad genes and some good genes.
It makes achievement more difficult but not impossible.
I miss the vitality i had when i was young.

Yet you seem to identify with what is delicate and weak, requiring special consideration.

Most humans - for various existential and cultural, moral reasons - identify with a deer when wolves run it down and begin to eat it alive....some few identify with the joy of the kill from the wolf's perspective - it will live to hunt another day.

Is Nature a Nazi?
The Judeo-Christians seem to think so, and so every time they see a defender or a reporter of nature they accuse it of what is most heinous in historical contexts - because the victors write the history books.

How many "Holocausts" has nature perpetrated?
Were the ancient-Greeks and the Romans Nazis, as well? They worshiped the multiplicity of nature?
Were the Spartans Nazis by todays Americanised standards?

"Yet you seem to identify with what is delicate and weak, requiring special consideration."

Honestly, given the size and power of reality,
mighty men are actually weak.

When someone compares themselves to crap,
they may become beautiful.
In comparison.

Likewise, when someone thinks he is strong,
it is because he entertains the ideas of weak creatures.

"How many "holocausts" has nature perpetrated?
Were the ancient-Greeks and the Romans Nazis, as well? They worshiped the multiplicity of nature?
Were the Spartans Nazis by todays Americanised standards?"

I'm no historian but Canadians are softies.
A fist fight is considered bad assed, and is rare.
Nobody kills each other on a rampage.

I associated Nazi-ism with darwinism because of attitudes about death and superiority.

Dan~~ wrote:

"Yet you seem to identify with what is delicate and weak, requiring special consideration."

Honestly, given the size and power of reality,
mighty men are actually weak.

Only in the ay you've defined "mighty men".
A way of self-comforting.

Dan~~ wrote:

When someone compares themselves to crap,
they may become beautiful.
In comparison.

Why would a truly "mighty man" compare himself to crap?

Dan~~ wrote:

Likewise, when someone thinks he is strong,
it is because he entertains the ideas of weak creatures.

What does it matter what you think of yourself or what you claim about yourself?
See on ILP how many claim all sort of absurdities, self-angradize, and then contradict themselves with their performances and their actions.
They all consider themselves "mighty men".

Strength is indifferent. It does not need to name itself, or prove itself to the weak.
It is, and they know it.
Power attract unintentionally, by simply being - like the mass of a planet draws stray bodies around its mass, without intent.
To need is to show weakness. To need to impress, to be admired, to be acknowledged, to be worshiped to be followed, is weakness.
A weak man always declares himself what he fears he is not and will never be.

Dan~~ wrote:

"How many "holocausts" has nature perpetrated?
Were the ancient-Greeks and the Romans Nazis, as well? They worshiped the multiplicity of nature?
Were the Spartans Nazis by todays Americanised standards?"

I'm no historian but Canadians are softies.
A fist fight is considered bad assed, and is rare.
Nobody kills each other on a rampage.

I associated Nazi-ism with darwinism because of attitudes about death and superiority.

So, in your mind nature is evil and must be "corrected" to be made "good".
Darwin simply offered a solution to speciation - he reported what he saw.
If a man reports what he sees, as philosophers often do, does this immediately mean that they agree, or like it, in your mind?
When I explain how natural selection viciously, brutally, excludes and selects, am i stating a preference?

As far as I know Nazis were German national socialists, so they wanted to purify and develop the German attributes they idealized.
The Jews do the same, using other methods....

By the way....social selection is a form of eugenics.
Not as overt as Nazism but more subtle, more covert....but the outcome is the same: eliminating undesirable human traits by nullifying their future - either through death or through feminine filtering.
In the latter the male lives out a long solitary sad and painful existence...in the former they experience a short brutal sometimes painful end.

My explanation that power is a miss-understanding,
is aimed at common mis conceptions.

A person can be strong, but their strength is small in the real world.

Back at ILP there was, for a while, the idea of being strong somehow through philosophy.
But that seemed to have died out and replaced by empty philosophy or mostly empty.
The shell remains but the inside is dead and dried up.

When people imagine power,
they often think of God, or politicians.

These things are crap, because of their context.
Power has been bastardized as a concept.

So, in your mind nature is evil and must be "corrected" to be made "good".

Nature can be improved if you favor this or that.
But I wouldn't call nature evil, either.
The world is an evil place according to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I grew up believing in that, but i was young.
What could I do but trust my parents?

I'd usually replace the word evil with the word dangerous, now.
That seems to make more sense to me.

Dan~~ wrote:

My explanation that power is a miss-understanding,
is aimed at common mis conceptions.

A person can be strong, but their strength is small in the real world.

Of course ...there are no absolute so there is no possibility to attain omnipotence - all is comparison.
An individual is "strong" in comparison to another, or to a median strength.

Dan~~ wrote:

Back at ILP there was, for a while, the idea of being strong somehow through philosophy.

Philosophy offers insight which can offer the possibility for cultivating inherited potentials to their fullest.

Dan~~ wrote:

]But that seemed to have died out and replaced by empty philosophy or mostly empty.
The shell remains but the inside is dead and dried up.

There is no philosophy being practiced on ILP. There is anti-philosophy, i.e., cynicism, feminine dialogues, flirting and the requisite bragging, posturing, declarative grandiosities, and word-manipualtions to reinvent and refurbish old philosophies, claiming them as their own....novel in name only.
Their obsession is to reinvent Christianity because they covet its effect - its power and longevity - while others pretend to have overcome Christianity's childishness, yet worship the same concepts under different names.

Dan~~ wrote:

]When people imagine power,
they often think of God, or politicians.

Yes...power over others....which contradicts itself.
The need to control exposes powerlessness.

A politician seduces the mases by pretending to be like them, one of them - he must lower himself to their lowest-common-denominator, and sell himself like a whore on then public squares.

Dan~~ wrote:

These things are crap, because of their context.
Power has been bastardized as a concept.

My entire thesis is about how nihilism corrupts language.

Dan~~ wrote:

I'd usually replace the word evil with the word dangerous, now.
That seems to make more sense to me.

Jehovah's witness, huh?
Well that explains a lot.

Nature is indifferent and uncertain....it is neither evil nor good.
It is uncertain because the cosmos is not entirely ordered but has chaotic energies which are increasing and which make it unpredictable.
This is why life evolves a processing organ, a brain, to deal with this unpredictability in real-time - no matter how slight it still is, in this point of cosmological time. But, neverminded that, your interest is one of coping and how to deal with nature's indifferent viciousness, right?

your interest is one of coping and how to deal with nature's indifferent viciousness, right?

My interest has to do with my soul.
Secondly my consciousness.
I love to learn, and use what I've got.
Meditation is also important to me,
but i have a hard time doing it for extended periods of time.

I think most things are free for the taking, also.
Reality has unlimited energy.

I am also a fan of skunks.
If nature can produce skunks, it's not all bad.

Such insults.
Does the den of dimwits not have enough vermin for your meditations?
I recall a variety...one crazier, more degenerate than the other. Studied them for years, until they became boring.
Birds of a feather...a microcosm of a macrocosm reality. The same variants of post-modern "wannabe's and lost souls looking for a daddy.

Well, if I can explain my positions on genes and memes, drop a note.
If not...good luck.

What applies to genes applies to memes.

Natural selection to memes implies not an imposition of beliefs but the competition over which perspective more accurately manages to explain ta shared world by incorporating as much observable details into its models as possible.
This is not based on Dawkins but on Spengler and Yockey's insights.

Genes - nucleotides, combined in a variety and sequential base-pairs of A T C G.
Memes are extensions of this, via the human brain, like all art and all technologies are extensions of man's understanding of himself, i.e., externalizing his mental models, his understanding, via an alternate medium.
Language is an art/technology.

Meme - semiotics, combined in a variety of sequences and variances, letter/word combinations...A to Z, in the English variant, Alpha to Omega in the Greek etc.
Just as genetic sequences and combinations determine genotypes and phenotypes, so do memetic sequences and combinations determine psychological type, mental type.

some combinations creating predators, carnivores, others creating prey, herbivores, others crating parasites, others viruses, others omnivores, others reptiles, others mammals.
Each genetic variant has a memetic equivalent with its own survival and reproductive methods and strategies.
Dominant memes usurp, exterminate other memes; others parasitize other memes; others establish symbiotic relationships.
Just as genes are "selfish" - indifferent to the welfare of the particular individual - so too are memes "selfish", and can be, like many parasites, self-destructive, as part of their reproductive cycles.

I read that human behavior is around 50% genetic 50% learned. I feel an underlying primordial inner force shapes what we think we know and do. Self oppression is often a key to conquest religions / viral religions. Human nature vs religion. Human nature won the battle, and shaped religions into anthropomorphic humanistic patterns. But religion was not fully defeated. It still spreads, for better or worse.

I think its closer to 70% genetic (body) - nature - and 30% memetic (mind) - nurture.
Nature is the sum of all nurturing.
Memes - nurturing - forces natural impulses to sublimate or to self-repress, or to redirect and conceal themselves.

Individuals inherit potentials - probabilities - genetically, and cultivate them to their fullest or partially, or they repress them and allow them to atrophy.

Religion as we know it in the west - Judeo-Christianity-Islam, the Abrahamic triad - is nihilistic, because it attempts to negate experienced existence with an idea, an ideal, a concept, an abstraction - a meme.
Such as a singularity, or an absolute = immutable, indivisible, complete, whole, one....etc.
We've been indoctrinated, since the fall of Rome, into nihilistic paradigms, because these are able to subjugate and control the masses by selling them a lie that comforts and gives hope, i.e., seduces.
The process was gradual...so Rome did not fall but slowly deteriorated and fragmented, becoming infested by an Afro-asiatic memetic-parasite that accelerated the process.
Parasites always appropriate and conceal themselves within a host, pretending they belong to it - then they slowly feed off the host until it declines, becoming self-destructive in the process.

Although Christianity adopted many Hellenic symbols and concepts it did so selectively, corrupting the ones it incorporated into tis antithetical dogmas.
Christianity is the product of an infestation that alters the behaviour of a host - see how parasites reproduce in nature and what they do and how they affect other organisms. Organisms, such as ant, begin to act in antithesis to their original impulses. They become suicidal.
Have not ideological parasites made Europeans behave and think in antithesis to their origins; are they not suicidal?