|
We cannot be effective against the acknowledged religions
or theism until after we have eliminated religion from our own ranks. We
must learn to recognize religion
by its effects upon us, from whatever system of thought those effects
arrive, in spite of how strongly we feel persuaded to make an exception of
our own particular version of it. We must also learn to recognize what
part of our own thinking has been misguided by religious influences common
to our own habitats and gain an expressible comprehension of how that has
injured our own passages through life.
Perhaps our best and most effective approach would be to look at life, and
our existence, as though we needed to understand nothing beyond what there
is accessible to our senses, and regard all else as speculative. That, and
not expressing our opinions as though they represent the only way things
have to be however unproven or wild they are, would free us all to learn
new things, to be excited about discoveries, and to join with each other
in the celebration of existence rather than in arguments about what could
be, might be, must be, has to be, ought to be true.
We can open our eyes to that by acknowledging the way the universe is
constructed, from the smallest parts upwards (and not from the top down as
religions see it), so that complexity results from simple advancements
over vast spans of time (and not as beginning with a being of immense
complexity who later 'designed' the simpler features). We can express this
way of seeing existence as events (occurrences over spans of time) in
processes.
This agrees with the common science about how the universe was formed from
elemental particles that mixed and matched in various ways to form each
unique kind of material, and also with the manner according to which
evolution progressed from the beginning until the present. This way of
understanding existence is a form of monism (wherein nature is the only
source of all) and stands opposed to spiritual dualism, wherein the
natural gets seen as pitted against a speculated supernatural and
generates an internal conflict that eons of warfare, murder, coups, and
belligerent routs of genocide have been unable to resolve.
The dualistic concept of a supernatural as separate from
nature insists that the universe was 'created' by some kind of intelligent
being; that spirituality which divides existence into spirit and corporeal
denies that singular relationship between energy and material; that mind
as separate from body denies the energy principle and the principle of
parsimony. Dualism cannot be supported by science in any realistic way,
whereas our monistic statement revels in scientific support in all the
ways required by the common approach to science. Being, in most ways,
directly accessible to the senses, our monistic statement is testable,
verifiable, describable, repeatable, understandable, and cogent.
The view that all to exist is events in processes, when
adhered to, allows us to grasp many concepts that seem tenuous (at best)
from our macro viewpoint. It also allows us one more way to understand how
some ideas are entirely without merit.
Many ideas considered metaphorical, or "only abstractions",
gain a perceptible reality within this view, which grants equal status to
the reality of events whether or not they emanate into a material form.
Observing how ideas can affect events gives such ideas heightened status
in our understanding of reality, including Dawkins' description of memes
(ideas that replicate by being copied). Once understood, it seems easy to
observe how memes and memeplexes steered the course of history as active
players in all kinds of events, mostly unrecognized and unheralded, and
powerful in their covert lairs while their hosts played out the games
according to the directions into which they were driven.
Memeplexes, while occupying the control centers of human
nervous systems, may act in ways that appear dedicated to prevention of
their discovery. While their presences may be obvious to those of us now
willing to acknowledge them, their nature must often remain hidden to
forestall actions against them. Actions against them are equated with (and
perceived to be) actions against the person playing the role of host for
them. Memeplexes accomplish this by promoting denial of self, which they
then supplant.
Ideas without merit cannot be supported within this view of
reality. The expressions inherent to memetics can, and must be accepted as
real so that humanity can benefit from increased awareness about them, and
from that we must learn to recognize them as benignant or malignant as
expressed in
The Complete Universe of Memes so that we can avoid those which are
parasites that humanity can do better without.
Artifices (ideas with no bearing in reality) remain
invisible because no actual events or processes can be associated with
them. They gain acceptance only from someone having said so. Memeplexes of
a malignant or parasitical nature are of that kind and, in spite of their
apologia that says otherwise, put forth astounding claims aimed at those
whose fearful affinity for wishful thinking makes them become willing
hosts.
Memeplexes (organized groups of replicable ideas) and
ideoplexes (groups of compatible ideas) can be recognized by their
contents and their effects upon reality. Dawkins described memes (in
The Selfish Gene) as resident within human nervous systems and as
having physical reality in that manner. Scoffers who demand to be shown
these memes are demanding they be somehow recognizable in some way
different from ideas that humans do not copy and that, therefore, are not
memes. What makes the difference is the nature of their events and the
processes with which they are associated, by which life is, itself,
recognized by us all.
Within a group of humans, each set of memes (each memeplex)
acts to influence the nature of contents within each individual's nervous
systems, so that all the individuals will in some manner respond to the
strongest memeplex in their midst. That describes the process and
associated events, in which the physical acts as a participant whose
actions are within the process in the form of events. Without inclusion of
events and the processes wherein they take place, even life cannot be
accredited with reality, so why should we not examine all of existence
accordingly?
Any group of humans who share a strong memeplex will
influence the thoughts and actions of others located outside of their
group so that the memetic phenotype gets extended beyond its hosts. In
such a way, the United States actually is a Xian nation in spite of all
protests and disavowals of the non-Xians living here. That memeplex has
been allowed to usurp legal standards as a result of the laxity and apathy
common to all the minorities whose inaction served to accommodate its
spreading influence.
While we atheists may hate the idea, no Xians should revel
in the glory of its acknowledgment, for it offers no support for their
religion as anything of value in any way other than that the cheapest
brand of anything may appear to be popular because of its numbers does not
warrant it as 'best' or even acknowledge it as really 'good'. The
strongest and most influential memeplexes are those hosted by fanatics;
the weakest are the most rational and reasonable, as assessed only by
their relative inability to grow and spread by inducing replication. The
best-behaved suitors attract the fewest potential mates, while the wildest
and most colorful find ways to stir emotions in spite of their apparent
danger, and attract eyes that remain oblivious to indistinct blandness.
Weeds will overtake a garden and crowd out the desirable plants if
preventive action never gets taken. "Oh, he's so hot!" finds expression,
while, "Oh, he's so normal!" never will.
Memeplexes that spawn destructive events are described as
malignant (cancerous, poisonous, pernicious) in The Complete Universe
of Memes; constructive memeplexes are contrarily described as
benignant (harmless, innocent, safe). That is the world of difference that
separates religion from the sciences. Malignant memes and memeplexes
represent systems of thought that detract from humanity's moral progress,
whatever the proclamations about themselves they have made to the
contrary. Benignant memes and memeplexes represent systems of thought that
enhance humanity's moral progress, or that are neutral regarding it.
Moral progress refers to that which promotes human
survival, nurturance, happiness and social cohesiveness under natural law.
Moral progress ought to encompass all that makes us better animals that
have adopted for ourselves the role of custodians of the Earth, to make
for ourselves a better home in which we may enhance our own chances for
survival as a species. Knowing that nature will weed us out if we don't
take up that task ourselves, we may have to find some legitimate way to
limit down our numbers in order to forestall that and preserve the
environmental balance we have a historical tendency to destroy.
As processes and the events inherent to them go, we have
the facilities to choose which of many paths we will walk, and to learn
how best to set the kinds of parameters that will allow us to understand
how to do that. We can learn to recognize which memeplexes harm mankind at
the individual and at the special level, and to explain to recalcitrant
hosts all the ways their favored memeplexes endanger mankind. We can also
learn to recognize that any program, no matter how carefully developed,
can be usurped by malignant memeplexes and turned around to support them
rather than humanity's causes.
The foregoing enables colligion to make use of religious
expressions to identify natural events:
Malignant memeplexes identified as forms of evil processes means that
evil becomes understandable in natural terminology. Malignant memeplexes
that induce their own hosts to act, live and think in ways that subject
themselves to harm readily compare with physical cancers in their nature
and mode of operation. Actions that persist through time to spawn and
perpetuate evil events, especially those which seem unstoppable, can be,
without difficulty, identified as demons and seen to be inherent to
malignant memeplexes. The destructive events wherein they work their evil
processes must be condemned by all humanity and must be identified as
crimes not only against human beings but also against nature whenever that
applies.
Benignant memeplexes, once understood as morally righteous, or at
least morally neutral and in sync with natural laws such as support human
advancement and survival over the long term, that do not violate or deny
the supremacy of nature's laws, that uphold science's pursuit to discover
and learn to understand more of and about nature's laws, so that morality
is increasingly understood to apply to and honor constructive and
nurturant human endeavors and processes, must be sponsored in all
societies as those desirable to and supportive of a universally healthy
humanity. Healthy minds in healthy bodies, a result of a truly nurturant
philosophy, would make a grand slogan to keep forever in our minds.
Moral righteousness ought to have nothing other than that as its aim,
never inciting events that serve to perpetuate the existence of some
organized system(s) at the expense of their members' wellbeing.
Constructive events can be identified as angels and those who
spawn, perpetuate or otherwise involve themselves in them could easily be
understood as angelic.
What determines constructive versus destructive? The supreme
natural interest of any species has to be to support whatever kinds of
events and processes assure survival for that species, and to denounce
those that diminish their prospects. The same can be said for any
individual, whether animal or plant. The study of ethics presents human
beings with understanding of how to resolve conflicts of interest in ways
that best enable all parties to advance in their own concerns.
To understand constructive versus destructive in any useful way, we must
first determine and agree upon an established viewpoint. Without that at
the outset, any discussion is fruitless. The best determination would find
its basis in the natural workings affecting all the interested parties,
and would have long-term considerations as an aim.
We are all affected and influenced by the processes of evolution and
somewhat by causality while refusing to deny any parties full
responsibility for their own actions. Beyond causality, we must stay
mindful of what arises from the events and processes in which we become
involved.
Constructive processes and events must necessarily be of a kind that
leaves humanity in a better state than was obvious at their beginnings.
Destructive processes and events must necessarily be of a sort that
deteriorates conditions from the norms of what was observable at their
beginnings. Such as that seems obvious, but a question remains concerning
who gets to deem when increase or decreases in conditions have taken
place. It is often the case that increase for one party represents
decrease for another. It is also even more often the case that neither
increase nor decrease has resulted from an event or process, and that such
activities are regarded as immoral even though their effects have been
completely innocuous, mainly due to religious indoctrination. Religion
cannot be an arbiter of morality or ethics because it has no testable
standards from which to draw wisdom.
A further question that needs to be answered before this essay can be
considered complete, is the relationship of the individual with his/her
society. A question is often parried: "Within a group, the group having
its own interests aside from any individual members, whose needs,
interests and desires should take precedence in the most moral group?" The
answer, I suspect, is that is not a proper question, however poignant it
may seem.
Why? (I will demand so you won't have to): Ask instead: "How should a
society (or any group) interact with its members in the most moral fashion
that can serve all their interests?"
We can realize groups succeed best according to the successes of their
individual members, and their individual members succeed best when they
perpetuate a group in such a way to spawn their own success. Rather than
either/or, treat the group as an individual within itself. By realizing
that any individual must resolve conflicts within himself by establishing
priorities, we can see that a group must do the same. One way may be to
vote upon group decisions, to let a majority decide according to those
priorities, and to acknowledge injured parties their due in ways that
enable their advancement in life.
Some strong-minded individuals always seem present with an intention to
undermine any group toward their own ends. They will attempt to influence
a majority into supporting them. The question of whether the group's
interest should take priority over any individuals arises from this
condition. The best answer so far is no, unless the group's interests can
be shown to be those that nurture the individual members or better assure
their overall success in life. That would be made evident by establishing
group priorities early on and operating
according to them. No individual should ever be expected to suffer a loss
for the benefit of the group, unless that loss or reversal of fortune is
somehow shared and agreed upon by all. [Click
here] |
![[Click to see larger picture]](images/DMDM05.jpg)
