From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 22:24:51 MDT
On 23 Sep 2002 at 0:02, Calvin Ashmore wrote:
>
> Yes, but what about from the memetic vantage?
> Must always passion stem from a foundation of belief?
> Does passion for something imply a heavy investiture of memes in that
> something?
>
> Both examples you gave, of egalatarianism and sexism or racism, both
> rely on belief, that either all are equal, or that one group is
> superior than another. Good and evil are one thing, but memetic
> dependence is quite different :] -Calvin
>
In either case, the passion for a position is, I believe, directly related to
the logical and/or emotional investitute in the memeset or memeplex
constituting or comprising that position, in such a manner that the more
deeply invested in the memeset/plex the individual is, the more deeply
felt their passion for the position represented by that memeplex/set will
be.
Even the 'meme' meme can count passionate adherents among those
who embrace it - and I am one of those, simply because I consider the
concept as making eminently logical sense, and caring about the wide
dissemination of truth, or of those human models which most closely
approximate it, is a positive value for me.
>
> >>> Joe Dees >>>
> Passion is, in and of itself, neither good nor evil (as if those were
> absolute categories!), yet it may equally serve ends that are
> generally agreed-upon as either benevolent or malevolent. There are
> those who are passionate about gender and racial egalitarianism, and
> others who are equally passionate about sexist or racist beliefs.
> However, I do believe that, just as consciousness must necessarily be
> relational (consciousness is by necessity consciousness OF), that
> passion must also refer to some position or stand (passion is by
> necessity passionate ABOUT something); I do not think that
> referentless passion is any more possible than contentless
> consciousness. <<< Joe Dees <<<
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:59 MDT