I have to say, I wasn't expecting this discourse to be a good is it was. I lost faith in the interpretations of Jung when the New-Age got hold of him, and would have almost certainly thought the throng would have memes and archetypes as the same thing (but you made a good distinction from collective to personal).
When people do think they are the same thing I'm sure they are getting mixed up with something like psychic powers, or maybe Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory.
Some of the comments here are very to the point - I especially give the "6 presentation idea" a try before posting another video; you make some interesting points, but they get lost in a wash of brainstorming. Take a cue from Jung himself - clear, convincing and concise in every interview/lecture he did. (And you don't have to BE Jung in order to adopt his teaching manners:)
One final note - the vowel in the name "Jung" is pronounced like the "you" in "youth", not the "you" in "young".
A meme can happen between two separate individuals: person A mimcs the information from person B!
Such thing cannot happen unless as a species we share a common psyche. Since consciousness is based on separation and direct thinking, that common psyche which allows a information to be copied must have an unconscious reality otherwise the information would not be recognised (unconsciously) in ordered to be copied!
Dawkins does not say that memes are necessarily unaffected by our conscious choices or that culture is entirely out of our control. Science, for example, is a memetic organism built of notions that have been consciously selected for their merit.
Elements of the psyche are instinctive beauty and attraction are fundamentally so but memes are cultural. This is perfectly naturalistic yet not dualistic. Memes are to the psyche as websites are to the worldwide web.
I would make 6 more videos exactly like this one leaving at least a day between videos. Think about what you said and review the ones already made. By the time you've done it for the sixth time, it should be pretty polished. I would also present this live a few times, and try to read the faces of the people you are presenting to. That way you know which areas are clear and which need more work. Putting it into a powerpoint presentation might help you organize your points. Hope this helps.
Jung made a distinction of archetypes (inherited instincts) and archetypal images (which may be informed by what you refered to as complexes). I think archetypes are encoded in the genes, whereas archetypal images are CULTURAL, and it is these archetypal IMAGES that probably equate with Dawkins' memes. The image is not the archetype, but an expression of it, in the same way that the genetic disposition of a baby to suckle is not the same as the act of suckling itself.
Archetypes are experienced different for each person. His foundation was that we are not a "Tabula Rosa", and Archetypes are experienced by the inherent perception, as described by the "Self" inside the individual. Dawkins placed his focus on the outside for Memes, where as Jung looked inwardly to described the Archetypes we will experience.
"Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens."- Carl Jung
Very nice, but you would have found a better foundation for your Video, had you have focused on Jung's concept of the "Self". It IS inherently separate from the Archetypes, and is infact, the basis at which they are experienced. This is why people may experience their parenting, differently than their parents attempted to make it. It's about perception,and Dawkins didn't touch that deeply;only on the lack of accurate repitition. Lack of accruate repition however, has it's basis in perception.
What I understood of the theme of the memes, is that there are ideas that can go from one person to an other. Jung's ideas involve an other organization of the meme. May be as each arquetipo is an chain of memes and involve a biger complexity.
In 500 years, or maybe 1000, I think we will look back on the ideas of Darwin, Jung and Dawkins and appreciate what a truly inspirational insight they gave us to the human existence. The linking narrative that pulls it all together is almost there, maybe not quite. It tantalises us but will eventually all fall into place. I think this video is a good attempt. Let's all keep talking and thinking until we get it all sorted.
no trolling here pal but I'm sick to the high teeth of the lunacy of materialist atheists, and the apologism that us seekers have to lend to them for the guise of credibility. Dawkins is where he is because he perpetuates the ideals of an institution that I find as sickening as religion, his book the 'God delusion' is philosophically as deep as a puddle and symtomatic of a jumped up middle class prick who has never been in touch with his emotions. Of course he's brilliant but hedeservesno alter
anyway, with respect to the actual video, I feel that Matt's review shows how limited the materialistic three dimensional perspective is in the analysis of mind and consciousness. The meme is limited but then again I have never struggled with the metaphores and messages of myth, but i guess in a 'perfect' society those skills are obsolete and we will all talk in binary. Dawkin's isn't wrong but he doesn't go far enough for reasons already stated.
Well, we can all use metaphors, but to say that they are somehow a gateway to better knowledge than science is something that you need to seriously reconsider. I think your issue is that while Dawkins isn't wrong, he doesn't agree with your cherished position regarding religion so you can't say he's right.
Consider the fact that Science has doubled human life expectancy versus what religion has to offer... and what is that exactly ? Religion started this fight, but it won't win it. It isn't an issue of "atheist materialistic reductionism" as you put it, what is up for grabs is the determination of a religious minority to choose what may be taught and to remove the separation of church and state, that is the agenda and that is why atheism is reasserting its intellectual credentials aggressively.
atheist materialistic reductionism" as I put it, is about a crude means of observation that asserts no credit to a mechanism outside of the domain of the the 5 main perceptory senses, there is ample reasoning to suggest such a thing but as such reasoning does not support the economic paradigm it becomes chastised as lunacy and those who encounter such higher mechanics of nature are deemed unsuitable for our society. oh don't forget the stockpiles of nukes and betablockers, thanks science.
Yeah, and thanks science for all the wonderful electric servants that let us all live like mediaeval royalty. So things outside the economic paradigm are chastised as lunacy ? No, matters put forwards without a good foundation in evidence are treated with skepticism, and often explained by the apparent mental illness of the proponent. There is a notable difference.
i would just like to say that this video has given me a useful introduction to these two theories. comparing them requires their definition, which you have done pretty clearly here. thanks.
Are there any psychology profs here that have ever heard of the following brainwashing techniques:
1-Hero Identification
2-Hero Substitution
3-Hero Construction
etc,
used in relation to the movie and television industry. I came across this in some top secret papers when I was working overseas but I can't find anyone who has ever heard of this,not even on campus.I would like to discuss what I read with someone who is familiar with the topic.
You MUST read joeseph campbell any book of his or searh for its video on youtube or google.video ... and later PLEASE let me know what you learnt. Thank you..
Hey! That was an awesome video. Theirs this new awesome site where you can meet your fellow personality types. Its called personalitycafe . Just go on google and search for the keywords personalitycafe
I dont think its fair to say Dawkins separates mind and body, he is an evolutionary biologist who rejects mystic notions of spirituality. Dawkins sees one whole body or 'being' to use your coined Heidegger terminology, not a body carrying a mind or vice versa.
I believe Memes give the evolutionary tide its ebb and flow. I believe teachers would be the host and the students the infected bodies, More than likely if the meme is made of good information, creating a permanent host for the meme. Therefore restarting the gestation cycle for an evolved version of the meme.
Memes spawned of bad information can be interpreted as ideologies/behaviors to participate in acts such as: Serial Killing, Rape and Domestic Violence, Genocide, Infanticide, and Suicide.
If Dawkins theory of memmes is correct, then he along with all his other thoughtsd are but consequences of "memes" ergo why are his ideas any more true correct then anyone elses.
You know when soemone is REALLY dumb when you have to repeat things to them..I said that thoughts are a resultant of memes, therefore why are Dawkins thoughts superior to anyone elses. Except for you who is obviuosly thew result of a house plant and a fly having had sexual congress and are completely devoid of memes or the capacity to THINK for himself
Yes, you did say that, and as a result, I said you are fucking dumb. I don't mind repeating myself, so I'll say it again for you. You, sir, are fucking dumb. Have a nice, day! Tell Robert we miss him very much, and his apple brown betty was always the best.
The reproductive value of the meme determines it's prevalence. Somehow the question you posed is flawed. I don't know exactly though. I think it has to do with all ideas are true, and to say some ideas are more true than others doesn't work. Some ideas are more useful and are copied more, and that makes them more adapt to survive and reproduce.
"The reproductive value of the meme determines it's prevalence" - no, I was just reading it again yesterday. The idea is that memes and genes are selfish they're concerned with self propagation, not the carrier. Dawkins uses the example of Auld Lang Syne passed on from brain to brain
The equivalent to the complex in memetics is the perception of creation, selection, and use of memes. As far as archetypes go I am too unfamiliar with Jung to give it justice. You are right in that there is a fundamental difference in the two. Archetypes are universal, and memes are by definition specific. No one person can know an archetype completely, they can only have their own interpretation of it. All I can know of a meme is that specific copy.
The problem people have accepting memes is that they are more fuzzy than genes. A gene is a distinct unit defined in terms of a precise sequence of DNA codons. A meme is similar in that it is a kind of 'software'. The difference is that thoughts are encoded in minds as neural networks. The language and coding format is different, and the method of transferral across hosts is far more complex, but I believe its real and is profound. This is the first of your vids Ive watched - its great stuff :)
I think that the framework wherein memes are relevant is entirely different from the one wherein archetypes or anything to do with the psyche is relevant. Memes are a product of the rationalist mindset (favored by Dawkins) which has very little room for anything resembling an unconscious, at least in the way Jung defined it. From Dawkins' perspective, human consciousness is logical, linear, and hides nothing. Concentrate hard enough, and all mystery will be revealed, etc....
From the Jungian perspective, human consciousness is psychic, which situates it in an entirely different universe where no amount of logical investigation can ever lay the structure of the unconscious bare before us. Our experience is paradoxical by its very nature, we being in some sense conscious and rational, and in other senses pre- and or supra-conscious.
Dawkins' view leaves no room for such irrationalities. Consciousness is that which can be thought, and there is nothing beyond that which can be thought. Enter memes. Memes are Dawkins word for cultural atoms, ideas that spread of themselves regardless of their subjective meaning from the perspective of each individual psyche.
So to answer your question, memes cannot be made conscious because they are always already conscious. For Dawkins, human beings deal only with consciousness, with reality as it empirically appears to us through the frame of rationality.
Archetypes and Memes, I've come to think, cannot be used as explanatory devices within the same conceptual model. They are aspects of competing conceptual models. Archetypes are an aspect of existence as interpreted from the perspective of the psyche, the whole human being and everything it experiences. Memes are an aspect of existence as interpretted by the rational, reductive, scientific mind; they are a construction of disengaged reason, etc.
Both are useful explanatory devices, but do you see what I mean when I say that these two words cannot be mixed together into the same explanatory conceptual scheme? They make sense only based on quite different basic axioms...
I think as a materialist scientist, he is forced to assume that his disengaged, rational, logical mind is the only suitable perspective to take when trying to correctly describe reality.
I am nowhere nearly as well versed in Dawkin's as I would like to be to answer your question nor as you obviously are. From what you are saying alone, I can see the point you wish to make.
For some reason I get the image of a huge silver coin in my mind, with Dawkins on the face and Jung on the Tail. A subconscious image rising to the surface. The coin is viewed edge on but both sides can be seen like a Picaso. Now a thought comes to mind unbidden,"Some can see only one side of a coin at a time." Again, this is subconscious reasoning, if there is such a thing.
But isn't this similar to Jung's idea of synchronicity... just a mass of causally connectable meaningful coincidences. IMO, much of today's "collective unconsciousness" can be traced to the lack of understanding of history and words! This contrast of light vs dark, good vs evil, wrong vs right usually revolves around HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE and/or DECEPTION. I'm beginning to stray from the point now. Great topic...
Jung is awesome. I wasn't aware until I had started researching synchronicity that he was the one who originated the idea. I know very little of others like him, which is why I like watching your videos - you're like a flippin' dictionary. =p
Check out Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wison. "The Relation Between Biological and Cultural Evolution," Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 8 : pg343-359 (1985).
Consider episodic and semantic memory. Episodic memory recalls the direct 'perception' of people and other concrete entities through time, like images on a movie screen. Semantic memory recalls 'meaning' by the connection of objects and ideas, either directly by their images held in episodic memory or by the symbols denoting the images.
Envision concepts as 'nodes', or reference points, in semantic memory that ultimately can be associated with neural activity in the brain. Concepts and their symbols are usually labeled by words. Complex information is organized and transmitted by language composed as words.
Nodes are almost always linked to other nodes, so that to recall one node is to summon others. This linkage is the essence of 'meaning'. The linkage of nodes is assembled as a hierarchy to organize information with more and more meaning.
When new episodes and concepts are added to memory, they are processed by a spreading search through the limbic and cortical system, which establishes links w/ previously created nodes.
The nodes are not spatially isolated centers connected to other isolated centers. They are typically complex circuits of large numbers of nerve cells deployed over wide, overlapping areas of the brain.
The natural elements of culture can be reasonably assumed to be the hierarchically arranged components of semantic memory, encoded by discrete neural circuits awaiting identification.
The definition of meme I suggest is more focused and somewhat different from that of Dawkins. The unit of culture (meme) should be the same as the node of semantic memory and its correlates in brain activity. The level of the node, whether concept (the simplest recognizable unit), proposition, or schema, determines the complexity of the idea, behavior, or artifact that it helps to sustain in the culture at large.
With advances in the neurosciences and psychology the notion of node-as-meme, and perhaps the distinction between episodic and semantic memory, are likely to give way to more sophisticated and complex taxonomies.
The assignment of the unit of culture to neuroscience might seem at first an attempt to short-circuit semiotics, the formal study of all communication. That objection would be unjustified.
If the causal connections can between semiotics and biology can be established empirically, then future discoveries concerning the nodes of semantic memory will correspondingly sharpen the definition of memes. Such advances will enrich not replace semiotics.
It sounds good in pixels, but I wonder how it is that the neurons store information or units of culture. A node makes complete sense to me when we talk in terms of sensorimotor action, as certain brain areas are responsible for balance, proprioception, and sensory organization. It makes sense because I can see exactly how an electrical circuit in the body could come to cause or be correlated with the movement and coodination of that body.
But just how do cells begin to transfer units of culture, language, words, symbols? I can understand a little better how they might give rise to and understand vocalizations. Then I guess the next step is that they could also tell the hands how to type, write, and the visual cortex could wire the necessary connections to sustain the process of symbol recognition.
semantic memory originates in episodes and almost invariably causes the brain to recall other episodes. but the brain has a strong tendency to condense repeated episodes of a kind into concepts, which are then represented by symbols.
Example: 'proceed to the airport this way' becomes a silhouette of an airplane and an arrow. or 'this substance is poisonous' becomes a skull and crossbones on the side of a bottle.
'hound' 'hare' and 'chasing' are nodes, each symbolizing collectively a class of more or less similiar images. a hound chasing a hare is called a proposition, the next order of complexity in information. the higher order above the proposition is the schema.
I may just be retarded but how can anyone even suppose that there is inherent symbols in the brain? Is that what is being said here or am I retarded? Nothing can be known prior to life, even in any gene transference (other than instinct). I would think anyways...and if I am wrong, I would like examples as to why I am wrong so that I can evaluate what ever back ups anyone has, and send it to me in my message box because I'll prolly never come back to this and read anymore unless you do that
Suppose you are handed an unfamiliar piece of fruit. You automatically classify its appearance, smell, taste, and circumstances under which it was given. A large amount of information is activated w/in seconds, not just the comparison of the fruit in hand woth other kinds but also emotional feelings, recollections of previous discoveries of similiar nature, and memory of dietary customs that seem appropriate.
The fruit, all its characteristics compounded is given a name. Consider the durian of SE Asia, regarded as the greatest of all tropical fruits. it looks like a spiney grapefruit, tastes sweet with a transient custardlike nuance, and when held away from the mouth smells like a sewer. The experience of a single piece establishes the concept of 'durian' for a lifetime.
I kinda see the term 'meme' as representing 'idea' or 'belief'. in what way do memes go beyond our genes? well.. it's becouse of your beliefs and ideas about things you start to do things that are against your nature and we as humans are the only ones that do that. for example, believing that you are the most repulsive person on the earth will probably stop your effort to reproduce, or. being a catholic priest will stop your effort.. social darwinism might make you stop being altruistic, etc.
I really don't see the dualism in memetics... language is just as organic as singing... if you damage your head (like being a boxer and getting your brains smashed at the back of your skull) your speech will become blurry and stuff.. and I don't really think Dawkins would be a dualist, considering how he opposes religion, and I've seen some of his interviews, he never mentioned mind being a separate thing or something in that flavour.
And I think that memetics aren't thought to be unconscious. Because you can clearly see how a belief you may have may be negative or positive for you to have. It's just a different way of thinking about your beliefs. Like asking "does my hatred towards blondes actually benefit me in any way, or does it harm me?".. I hope you get the idea.
There is no dualism in memetics. Memes are physical things, a form of information, like the software on your harddrive. Dualistic memes are called 'spirits', but memetics itself is pysicalistic, and hence monistic, not dualistic.
Wow, interesting. I never considered this before, but it seems that memes may explain why/how archetypes operate... the two concepts don't oppose each other, rather they support each other.
The way memes are 'disembodied': I can pass them along to anyone I encounter, maybe even if we spoke different languages (depending on the complexity of the meme). I can only pass on biological traits through biological reproduction.
Now, I would have a problem with a theory of 'the selfish meme' because I'm sure memes are selcted not only for their structure, but for their context (the memes around them, if you will), but I still think there is a legitimate distinction to be made with the meme meme.
I agreed with some things and was unsure about others.... Your analogy at the end lost me, I'm not sure how physical things we don't have the ability to sense is analagous to archetypes 'out there in the world'
I have to say, I wasn't expecting this discourse to be a good is it was. I lost faith in the interpretations of Jung when the New-Age got hold of him, and would have almost certainly thought the throng would have memes and archetypes as the same thing (but you made a good distinction from collective to personal).
When people do think they are the same thing I'm sure they are getting mixed up with something like psychic powers, or maybe Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory.
Phavonic 1 month ago
Check out Duality and Socionics. It's real.
lollygaggerable 7 months ago
guapo
sanmattia 9 months ago
Some of the comments here are very to the point - I especially give the "6 presentation idea" a try before posting another video; you make some interesting points, but they get lost in a wash of brainstorming. Take a cue from Jung himself - clear, convincing and concise in every interview/lecture he did. (And you don't have to BE Jung in order to adopt his teaching manners:)
One final note - the vowel in the name "Jung" is pronounced like the "you" in "youth", not the "you" in "young".
mhazani 11 months ago
I would view the Meme as closer to the complexes of the Personal Unconscious.
The Archetypes of the collective unconscious would need to exists initially as a base for the existence of Memes.
selftranscendenceins 1 year ago
A meme can happen between two separate individuals: person A mimcs the information from person B!
Such thing cannot happen unless as a species we share a common psyche. Since consciousness is based on separation and direct thinking, that common psyche which allows a information to be copied must have an unconscious reality otherwise the information would not be recognised (unconsciously) in ordered to be copied!
brav0wing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Discovered in the 21stC: The Underlying Law of Nature.
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
The top 3 General Characteristics of The underlying law of nature are:
#1. The Way of All Things
#2. The Basis of All Laws and Principles
#3. The Basis of All Health, Growth, Efficacy and Efficiency
Google it – as a start.
The empirical process for identifying the underlying law of nature was discovered in 2008. Soon we may all do so.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
wow. you're wicked cute.
immaculateboy 2 years ago
Dawkins does not say that memes are necessarily unaffected by our conscious choices or that culture is entirely out of our control. Science, for example, is a memetic organism built of notions that have been consciously selected for their merit.
Elements of the psyche are instinctive beauty and attraction are fundamentally so but memes are cultural. This is perfectly naturalistic yet not dualistic. Memes are to the psyche as websites are to the worldwide web.
JohnColt 2 years ago
I would make 6 more videos exactly like this one leaving at least a day between videos. Think about what you said and review the ones already made. By the time you've done it for the sixth time, it should be pretty polished. I would also present this live a few times, and try to read the faces of the people you are presenting to. That way you know which areas are clear and which need more work. Putting it into a powerpoint presentation might help you organize your points. Hope this helps.
jgposner 2 years ago
Jung made a distinction of archetypes (inherited instincts) and archetypal images (which may be informed by what you refered to as complexes). I think archetypes are encoded in the genes, whereas archetypal images are CULTURAL, and it is these archetypal IMAGES that probably equate with Dawkins' memes. The image is not the archetype, but an expression of it, in the same way that the genetic disposition of a baby to suckle is not the same as the act of suckling itself.
saadaya 2 years ago
Very well put.
creationofself 2 years ago
I have been watching some of your
uploads...they are first rate...thanks.
I will post my lame video as a response.
The video does contain an example of an Archetype from the Illiad movie.
The video is lame, but the online book it refers to, Trance, Art, and Creativity
is worth skimming. Gowan contends
that most religious experiences,
inventions, creative writing etc.
come from the Collective Unconscious.
Google Gowan Creativity to view it.
atmanman 2 years ago
Archetypes are experienced different for each person. His foundation was that we are not a "Tabula Rosa", and Archetypes are experienced by the inherent perception, as described by the "Self" inside the individual. Dawkins placed his focus on the outside for Memes, where as Jung looked inwardly to described the Archetypes we will experience.
"Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens."- Carl Jung
pattycr88 2 years ago
Very nice, but you would have found a better foundation for your Video, had you have focused on Jung's concept of the "Self". It IS inherently separate from the Archetypes, and is infact, the basis at which they are experienced. This is why people may experience their parenting, differently than their parents attempted to make it. It's about perception,and Dawkins didn't touch that deeply;only on the lack of accurate repitition. Lack of accruate repition however, has it's basis in perception.
pattycr88 2 years ago
Hey, asshole. I sure do love your asshole. If I had an option, i would have sex with your asshole.
cheeseofmystery 2 years ago
What I understood of the theme of the memes, is that there are ideas that can go from one person to an other. Jung's ideas involve an other organization of the meme. May be as each arquetipo is an chain of memes and involve a biger complexity.
wiltatz 2 years ago
In 500 years, or maybe 1000, I think we will look back on the ideas of Darwin, Jung and Dawkins and appreciate what a truly inspirational insight they gave us to the human existence. The linking narrative that pulls it all together is almost there, maybe not quite. It tantalises us but will eventually all fall into place. I think this video is a good attempt. Let's all keep talking and thinking until we get it all sorted.
AxlConrad 3 years ago
Comment removed
leezus83 3 years ago
Off trolling eh? Well, you've got a lovely day for it!
rrritalin 2 years ago
no trolling here pal but I'm sick to the high teeth of the lunacy of materialist atheists, and the apologism that us seekers have to lend to them for the guise of credibility. Dawkins is where he is because he perpetuates the ideals of an institution that I find as sickening as religion, his book the 'God delusion' is philosophically as deep as a puddle and symtomatic of a jumped up middle class prick who has never been in touch with his emotions. Of course he's brilliant but hedeservesno alter
leezus83 2 years ago
I notice you say a lot of negative things but don't support what you say with examples. You are trolling, it's just you're bad at it.
formless777 2 years ago
anyway, with respect to the actual video, I feel that Matt's review shows how limited the materialistic three dimensional perspective is in the analysis of mind and consciousness. The meme is limited but then again I have never struggled with the metaphores and messages of myth, but i guess in a 'perfect' society those skills are obsolete and we will all talk in binary. Dawkin's isn't wrong but he doesn't go far enough for reasons already stated.
leezus83 2 years ago
Well, we can all use metaphors, but to say that they are somehow a gateway to better knowledge than science is something that you need to seriously reconsider. I think your issue is that while Dawkins isn't wrong, he doesn't agree with your cherished position regarding religion so you can't say he's right.
formless777 2 years ago
Consider the fact that Science has doubled human life expectancy versus what religion has to offer... and what is that exactly ? Religion started this fight, but it won't win it. It isn't an issue of "atheist materialistic reductionism" as you put it, what is up for grabs is the determination of a religious minority to choose what may be taught and to remove the separation of church and state, that is the agenda and that is why atheism is reasserting its intellectual credentials aggressively.
formless777 2 years ago
atheist materialistic reductionism" as I put it, is about a crude means of observation that asserts no credit to a mechanism outside of the domain of the the 5 main perceptory senses, there is ample reasoning to suggest such a thing but as such reasoning does not support the economic paradigm it becomes chastised as lunacy and those who encounter such higher mechanics of nature are deemed unsuitable for our society. oh don't forget the stockpiles of nukes and betablockers, thanks science.
leezus83 2 years ago
Yeah, and thanks science for all the wonderful electric servants that let us all live like mediaeval royalty. So things outside the economic paradigm are chastised as lunacy ? No, matters put forwards without a good foundation in evidence are treated with skepticism, and often explained by the apparent mental illness of the proponent. There is a notable difference.
formless777 2 years ago
that was a response to bardi's question
HiveToolDoublePlus 3 years ago
i would just like to say that this video has given me a useful introduction to these two theories. comparing them requires their definition, which you have done pretty clearly here. thanks.
WestRedCedar 3 years ago
Are there any psychology profs here that have ever heard of the following brainwashing techniques:
1-Hero Identification
2-Hero Substitution
3-Hero Construction
etc,
used in relation to the movie and television industry. I came across this in some top secret papers when I was working overseas but I can't find anyone who has ever heard of this,not even on campus.I would like to discuss what I read with someone who is familiar with the topic.
4merCIA 3 years ago
You MUST read joeseph campbell any book of his or searh for its video on youtube or google.video ... and later PLEASE let me know what you learnt. Thank you..
rulis124 3 years ago
Hey! That was an awesome video. Theirs this new awesome site where you can meet your fellow personality types. Its called personalitycafe . Just go on google and search for the keywords personalitycafe
profanitytalker 3 years ago
I dont think its fair to say Dawkins separates mind and body, he is an evolutionary biologist who rejects mystic notions of spirituality. Dawkins sees one whole body or 'being' to use your coined Heidegger terminology, not a body carrying a mind or vice versa.
andyfordays 3 years ago
I believe Memes give the evolutionary tide its ebb and flow. I believe teachers would be the host and the students the infected bodies, More than likely if the meme is made of good information, creating a permanent host for the meme. Therefore restarting the gestation cycle for an evolved version of the meme.
Memes spawned of bad information can be interpreted as ideologies/behaviors to participate in acts such as: Serial Killing, Rape and Domestic Violence, Genocide, Infanticide, and Suicide.
iamthepiratesignal 3 years ago
I wouldn't say that memes are a function of language. More so, language is a species of meme.
BoStevoD 3 years ago
If Dawkins theory of memmes is correct, then he along with all his other thoughtsd are but consequences of "memes" ergo why are his ideas any more true correct then anyone elses.
bardi7 3 years ago
You... are fucking dumb.
BoStevoD 3 years ago
You know when soemone is REALLY dumb when you have to repeat things to them..I said that thoughts are a resultant of memes, therefore why are Dawkins thoughts superior to anyone elses. Except for you who is obviuosly thew result of a house plant and a fly having had sexual congress and are completely devoid of memes or the capacity to THINK for himself
bardi7 3 years ago
Yes, you did say that, and as a result, I said you are fucking dumb. I don't mind repeating myself, so I'll say it again for you. You, sir, are fucking dumb. Have a nice, day! Tell Robert we miss him very much, and his apple brown betty was always the best.
BoStevoD 3 years ago
The reproductive value of the meme determines it's prevalence. Somehow the question you posed is flawed. I don't know exactly though. I think it has to do with all ideas are true, and to say some ideas are more true than others doesn't work. Some ideas are more useful and are copied more, and that makes them more adapt to survive and reproduce.
HiveToolDoublePlus 3 years ago
"The reproductive value of the meme determines it's prevalence" - no, I was just reading it again yesterday. The idea is that memes and genes are selfish they're concerned with self propagation, not the carrier. Dawkins uses the example of Auld Lang Syne passed on from brain to brain
lughlamh 3 years ago
The equivalent to the complex in memetics is the perception of creation, selection, and use of memes. As far as archetypes go I am too unfamiliar with Jung to give it justice. You are right in that there is a fundamental difference in the two. Archetypes are universal, and memes are by definition specific. No one person can know an archetype completely, they can only have their own interpretation of it. All I can know of a meme is that specific copy.
HiveToolDoublePlus 3 years ago
Jung was a fucking weirdo...but, you, redliterocket4, are one CUTE fucker! It's a good thing you're legal! Damn, I want some of that! lol
ILikeHotGuysOnUTube 3 years ago
The problem people have accepting memes is that they are more fuzzy than genes. A gene is a distinct unit defined in terms of a precise sequence of DNA codons. A meme is similar in that it is a kind of 'software'. The difference is that thoughts are encoded in minds as neural networks. The language and coding format is different, and the method of transferral across hosts is far more complex, but I believe its real and is profound. This is the first of your vids Ive watched - its great stuff :)
nr900 3 years ago
Can the structure of the Meme be made Conscious?
LordTempist 4 years ago
I think that the framework wherein memes are relevant is entirely different from the one wherein archetypes or anything to do with the psyche is relevant. Memes are a product of the rationalist mindset (favored by Dawkins) which has very little room for anything resembling an unconscious, at least in the way Jung defined it. From Dawkins' perspective, human consciousness is logical, linear, and hides nothing. Concentrate hard enough, and all mystery will be revealed, etc....
redliterocket4 4 years ago
From the Jungian perspective, human consciousness is psychic, which situates it in an entirely different universe where no amount of logical investigation can ever lay the structure of the unconscious bare before us. Our experience is paradoxical by its very nature, we being in some sense conscious and rational, and in other senses pre- and or supra-conscious.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Dawkins' view leaves no room for such irrationalities. Consciousness is that which can be thought, and there is nothing beyond that which can be thought. Enter memes. Memes are Dawkins word for cultural atoms, ideas that spread of themselves regardless of their subjective meaning from the perspective of each individual psyche.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
So to answer your question, memes cannot be made conscious because they are always already conscious. For Dawkins, human beings deal only with consciousness, with reality as it empirically appears to us through the frame of rationality.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Archetypes and Memes, I've come to think, cannot be used as explanatory devices within the same conceptual model. They are aspects of competing conceptual models. Archetypes are an aspect of existence as interpreted from the perspective of the psyche, the whole human being and everything it experiences. Memes are an aspect of existence as interpretted by the rational, reductive, scientific mind; they are a construction of disengaged reason, etc.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Both are useful explanatory devices, but do you see what I mean when I say that these two words cannot be mixed together into the same explanatory conceptual scheme? They make sense only based on quite different basic axioms...
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Quote:
"For Dawkins, human beings deal only with consciousness, with reality as it empirically appears to us through the frame of rationality."
Do you agree with that?
LordTempist 4 years ago
I think as a materialist scientist, he is forced to assume that his disengaged, rational, logical mind is the only suitable perspective to take when trying to correctly describe reality.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I am nowhere nearly as well versed in Dawkin's as I would like to be to answer your question nor as you obviously are. From what you are saying alone, I can see the point you wish to make.
LordTempist 4 years ago
For some reason I get the image of a huge silver coin in my mind, with Dawkins on the face and Jung on the Tail. A subconscious image rising to the surface. The coin is viewed edge on but both sides can be seen like a Picaso. Now a thought comes to mind unbidden,"Some can see only one side of a coin at a time." Again, this is subconscious reasoning, if there is such a thing.
LordTempist 4 years ago
I like that image.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But isn't this similar to Jung's idea of synchronicity... just a mass of causally connectable meaningful coincidences. IMO, much of today's "collective unconsciousness" can be traced to the lack of understanding of history and words! This contrast of light vs dark, good vs evil, wrong vs right usually revolves around HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE and/or DECEPTION. I'm beginning to stray from the point now. Great topic...
TruthJockey 4 years ago
This makes perfect sense!
xesclub101 4 years ago
Jung is awesome. I wasn't aware until I had started researching synchronicity that he was the one who originated the idea. I know very little of others like him, which is why I like watching your videos - you're like a flippin' dictionary. =p
thedarkener 4 years ago
Archetypes are hardware. Memes are software. Both
run on human brains.
tyrbolo 4 years ago
I think I agree with the metaphor, simple as it is.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
watch isismelting's response, man !
Mork5 4 years ago
cool vid thanks for posting. jung sounds pretty cool.
doubtindave 4 years ago
Check out Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wison. "The Relation Between Biological and Cultural Evolution," Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 8 : pg343-359 (1985).
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
thanks for all your time and interest! i'll give that book a look see.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I love EO Wilson...what a good man.
normonics 4 years ago
Consider episodic and semantic memory. Episodic memory recalls the direct 'perception' of people and other concrete entities through time, like images on a movie screen. Semantic memory recalls 'meaning' by the connection of objects and ideas, either directly by their images held in episodic memory or by the symbols denoting the images.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
Envision concepts as 'nodes', or reference points, in semantic memory that ultimately can be associated with neural activity in the brain. Concepts and their symbols are usually labeled by words. Complex information is organized and transmitted by language composed as words.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
Nodes are almost always linked to other nodes, so that to recall one node is to summon others. This linkage is the essence of 'meaning'. The linkage of nodes is assembled as a hierarchy to organize information with more and more meaning.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
When new episodes and concepts are added to memory, they are processed by a spreading search through the limbic and cortical system, which establishes links w/ previously created nodes.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
The nodes are not spatially isolated centers connected to other isolated centers. They are typically complex circuits of large numbers of nerve cells deployed over wide, overlapping areas of the brain.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
The natural elements of culture can be reasonably assumed to be the hierarchically arranged components of semantic memory, encoded by discrete neural circuits awaiting identification.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
The definition of meme I suggest is more focused and somewhat different from that of Dawkins. The unit of culture (meme) should be the same as the node of semantic memory and its correlates in brain activity. The level of the node, whether concept (the simplest recognizable unit), proposition, or schema, determines the complexity of the idea, behavior, or artifact that it helps to sustain in the culture at large.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
With advances in the neurosciences and psychology the notion of node-as-meme, and perhaps the distinction between episodic and semantic memory, are likely to give way to more sophisticated and complex taxonomies.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
The assignment of the unit of culture to neuroscience might seem at first an attempt to short-circuit semiotics, the formal study of all communication. That objection would be unjustified.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
If the causal connections can between semiotics and biology can be established empirically, then future discoveries concerning the nodes of semantic memory will correspondingly sharpen the definition of memes. Such advances will enrich not replace semiotics.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
It sounds good in pixels, but I wonder how it is that the neurons store information or units of culture. A node makes complete sense to me when we talk in terms of sensorimotor action, as certain brain areas are responsible for balance, proprioception, and sensory organization. It makes sense because I can see exactly how an electrical circuit in the body could come to cause or be correlated with the movement and coodination of that body.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But just how do cells begin to transfer units of culture, language, words, symbols? I can understand a little better how they might give rise to and understand vocalizations. Then I guess the next step is that they could also tell the hands how to type, write, and the visual cortex could wire the necessary connections to sustain the process of symbol recognition.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
but what exactly is a unit of culture? are different ideas made of different combinations of the same units?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
ie, is the alphabet the meme machine?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
semantic memory originates in episodes and almost invariably causes the brain to recall other episodes. but the brain has a strong tendency to condense repeated episodes of a kind into concepts, which are then represented by symbols.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
Example: 'proceed to the airport this way' becomes a silhouette of an airplane and an arrow. or 'this substance is poisonous' becomes a skull and crossbones on the side of a bottle.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
'hound' 'hare' and 'chasing' are nodes, each symbolizing collectively a class of more or less similiar images. a hound chasing a hare is called a proposition, the next order of complexity in information. the higher order above the proposition is the schema.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
I may just be retarded but how can anyone even suppose that there is inherent symbols in the brain? Is that what is being said here or am I retarded? Nothing can be known prior to life, even in any gene transference (other than instinct). I would think anyways...and if I am wrong, I would like examples as to why I am wrong so that I can evaluate what ever back ups anyone has, and send it to me in my message box because I'll prolly never come back to this and read anymore unless you do that
TheShaneHaley 2 years ago
'units of culture' (memes) are nodes of semantic memory.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
Suppose you are handed an unfamiliar piece of fruit. You automatically classify its appearance, smell, taste, and circumstances under which it was given. A large amount of information is activated w/in seconds, not just the comparison of the fruit in hand woth other kinds but also emotional feelings, recollections of previous discoveries of similiar nature, and memory of dietary customs that seem appropriate.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
The fruit, all its characteristics compounded is given a name. Consider the durian of SE Asia, regarded as the greatest of all tropical fruits. it looks like a spiney grapefruit, tastes sweet with a transient custardlike nuance, and when held away from the mouth smells like a sewer. The experience of a single piece establishes the concept of 'durian' for a lifetime.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
is the alphabet a meme machine?
If you watched sesame street, you know that 'c' means cookie. 'c' is the symbol. Your semantic memory recalls 'c' and cookie. both are memes.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
Paul Laffoley on the topic:
sign->index->icon->archetype->symbol->cypher
as
list->anecdote->tale->legend->myth->epiphany
as
occurance->circumstance->concurrence->coincidence->causality->synchronicity
So maybe he would agree with Jihunn that memes are above archetypes. I think I would put memes on the symbol/myth/causality level.
denito9474 4 years ago
I kinda see the term 'meme' as representing 'idea' or 'belief'. in what way do memes go beyond our genes? well.. it's becouse of your beliefs and ideas about things you start to do things that are against your nature and we as humans are the only ones that do that. for example, believing that you are the most repulsive person on the earth will probably stop your effort to reproduce, or. being a catholic priest will stop your effort.. social darwinism might make you stop being altruistic, etc.
Mariborchan 4 years ago
I really don't see the dualism in memetics... language is just as organic as singing... if you damage your head (like being a boxer and getting your brains smashed at the back of your skull) your speech will become blurry and stuff.. and I don't really think Dawkins would be a dualist, considering how he opposes religion, and I've seen some of his interviews, he never mentioned mind being a separate thing or something in that flavour.
Mariborchan 4 years ago
And I think that memetics aren't thought to be unconscious. Because you can clearly see how a belief you may have may be negative or positive for you to have. It's just a different way of thinking about your beliefs. Like asking "does my hatred towards blondes actually benefit me in any way, or does it harm me?".. I hope you get the idea.
Mariborchan 4 years ago
No scientist wants to be a dualist, but sometimes dualism sneaks into their theories because dualism is such staple of rational thought.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
There is no dualism in memetics. Memes are physical things, a form of information, like the software on your harddrive. Dualistic memes are called 'spirits', but memetics itself is pysicalistic, and hence monistic, not dualistic.
wonderist 4 years ago
Wow, interesting. I never considered this before, but it seems that memes may explain why/how archetypes operate... the two concepts don't oppose each other, rather they support each other.
HoldinCoffee 4 years ago
I've been moving in the opposite direction. I think they seem to be conflicting theories that can't both be true.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
The way memes are 'disembodied': I can pass them along to anyone I encounter, maybe even if we spoke different languages (depending on the complexity of the meme). I can only pass on biological traits through biological reproduction.
normonics 4 years ago
Now, I would have a problem with a theory of 'the selfish meme' because I'm sure memes are selcted not only for their structure, but for their context (the memes around them, if you will), but I still think there is a legitimate distinction to be made with the meme meme.
normonics 4 years ago
the meme meme? like the meme which supports the theory of memes itself?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
exactly ;)
normonics 4 years ago
did you disagree with how I compared the two ideas?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I agreed with some things and was unsure about others.... Your analogy at the end lost me, I'm not sure how physical things we don't have the ability to sense is analagous to archetypes 'out there in the world'
normonics 4 years ago