[pp.int.general] How meme's are being manipulated & culture might be damaged according to a scientifically basis. - Scream for help.

[Max Moritz Sievers]

Core TX sreamed:

> The evolution theorie is a "hot topic" because of religous bias.

This is because religion is also a sexual subject.

> Right now you might wonder what this has got to do with PP issues.

No. The question if and how religion and the state can coexist is quite old 
and was labeled "The Jewish question" since the so called Age of 
Enlightenment. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_question

> The answer is quite a lot, since our culture also evolves. In fact, it
> involves our verry being in the most intrinsic way imagineable. It's not
> just about traditional expression's of culture that we see in the form of
> art like painting's, music, and film. But it also mutates the way we
> actually* think and act.*

As Terence McKenna said: Culture is not your friend.

> From a "Biological" point of view copyrights and patent's are almost analog
> to the engineering of DNA.

No, I don't think so. The regulation of gene expression and heredity work much 
too well. There happen errors in copying and there are repair mechanisms of 
different kinds. And there is gene transfer happening between the species -- 
I guess you thought of this for your comparison. Still I don't see the 
analogy. I only know of the sharks and the ferns which are assumedly excluded 
of horizontal gene transfer (through viruses). How many potential users are 
practically excluded from patents or inhibited through copyright?

> Therefore manipulateing our way of *thinking* 
> and *acting*. Since they effectively limit the borders of our cultural
> expansion and development. Effectivly stopping our evolution. Hence,
> limiteing the progress and promotion of art's, science et al.

Generally speaking genes don't prohibit, they enable. On the other side laws 
always prohibit. I concur that people's thinking limits them.

| Why do certain opposition parties fail to flourish? Solely for the reason
| that they refuse to forsake the path of morality or legality. Hence the
| measureless hypocrisy of devotion, love, etc., from whose repulsiveness one
| may daily get the most thorough nausea at this rotten and hypocritical
| relation of a "lawful opposition." -- In the moral relation of love and
| fidelity a divided or opposed will cannot have place; the beautiful relation
| is disturbed if the one wills this and the other the reverse. But now,
| according to the practice hitherto and the old prejudice of the opposition,
| the moral relation is to be preserved above all. What is then left to the
| opposition? Perhaps the will to have a liberty, if the beloved one sees fit
| to deny it? Not a bit! It may not will to have the freedom, it can only wish
| for it, "petition" for it, lisp a "Please, please!" What would come of it,
| if the opposition really willed, willed with the full energy of the will?
| No, it must renounce will in order to live to love, renounce liberty -- for
| love of morality. It may never "claim as a right" what it is permitted only
| to "beg as a favour."
-- Max Stirner: The Ego and Its Own
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own/The_Possessed

I suggest to you to study the philosophy of John Lilly. Here is a foretaste:

| In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes
| true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally.
| These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are
| no limits... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes
| to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found
| experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be
| transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits.
-- John C. Lilly: Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: 
Theory and Experiments

I read "The Centre of the Cyclone".

> While tinkering with idea's that involve the way people think, and act
> religion come's into play verry soon. What suprise's me about this, is the
> fact that most religious people within the political spectrum are heavily
> against DNA manipulation, but are strongly against "pirates" thus for the
> manipulation of culture makeing them hypocrit's and irrational being's.

Of course religious people are hypocrites and irrational beings but not 
because they are against genetic engineering and also against "pirates". It's 
easy to figure out when you recognise they are conservative. Pirates are 
outlaws -- unlawful tax collectors and/or unlucky freedom fighters. They 
disturb the order -- even the "landlubber" type.

> And yet again, i  started to think about the works of Dawkin's also the
> author of documentary's like "The Root of all Evil " And the TED talk about
> millitant atheism and how religion is corrosive to science and vice versa.

Militant atheism, the believe in science and all other beliefs of this sort 
are fixed ideas.

| It is easily understood that the conflict over what is revered as the
| highest essence can be significant only so long as even the most embittered
| opponents concede to each other the main point -- that there is a highest
| essence to which worship or service is due. If one should smile
| compassionately at the whole struggle over a highest essence, as a Christian
| might at the war of words between a Shiite and a Sunnite or between a
| Brahman and a Buddhist, then the hypothesis of a highest essence would be
| null in his eyes, and the conflict on this basis an idle play. Whether then
| the one God or the three in one. whether the Lutheran God or the être
| suprême or not God at all, but "Man," may represent the highest essence,
| that makes no difference at all for him who denies the highest essence
| itself, for in his eyes those servants of a highest essence are one and
| all -- pious people, the most raging atheist not less than the most
| faith-filled Christian.
|
| In the foremost place of the sacred, then, stands the highest essence and
| the faith in this essence, our "holy faith."
-- Max Stirner: The Ego and Its Own
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own/The_Possessed

| If the point is to have myself understood and to make communications, then
| assuredly I can make use only of human means, which are at my command
| because I am at the same time man. And really I have thoughts only as man;
| as I, I am at the same time thoughtless. He who cannot get rid of a thought
| is so far only man, is a thrall of language, this human institution, this
| treasury of human thoughts. Language or "the word" tyrannizes hardest over
| us, because it brings up against us a whole army of fixed ideas. Just
| observe yourself in the act of reflection, right now, and you will find how
| you make progress only by becoming thoughtless and speechless every moment.
| You are not thoughtless and speechless merely in (say) sleep, but even in
| the deepest reflection; yes, precisely then most so. And only by this
| thoughtlessness, this unrecognized "freedom of thought" or freedom from the
| thought, are you your own. Only from it do you arrive at putting language to
| use as your property.
-- Max Stirner: The Ego and Its Own
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own/My_Self-Enjoyment

> That verry same person also showed the linear equasion between the
> perception of "Religious importance" and the homo sapiens intellect. This
> is no longer just theorie, but fact.

I don't take for a fact a conclusion by someone who doesn't know what he is 
talking about.

> So, in a nutshell, what I see is the following.
>
> Religion <-> Science
>            /patents/
> Copyright <-> Culture
>
> It's both corrosive towards each other, yet work in nearly exactly the same
> way.

Copyright is culture. This is obvious. But religion can also be seen as 
science. There was a time the only faculty at university was theology -- alsp 
medicine and law were regarded as sub-themes of theology.

Culture isn't limited to those wild parties with free music and free love. 
Spending more budget on lawyers than on R&D is culture, too.

-- 
regards
Max Moritz Sievers