I know it's a little abstract. Just skim through it if you want. The important part is the logical form (A>B)v~C I come to at the end. That's the basic template for framing any of your terminology and catch phrases in.
1.)The Basic Concept of Memetics
Memetics is the study of memes. What are memes? Memes are the social analog of genes. Like a gene they are replicating informational structures but unlike a gene they reproduce in a sociobiological setting as opposed to a hereditary setting. An example of a meme is a catch phrase or a popular belief that replicates by spreading from person to person.
Oftentimes several memes form into a mutually reinforcing structure called a memeplex that often represents an ideology or belief system. Memes usually survive better in the context of a memeplex where they provide justification for other memes favored by the person carrying them and are in turn justified by those memes.
Memetic engineering is the art of artificially creating and manipulating memeplexes. For the rest of this booklet I will describe the structure of memeplexes and show how this structure can be used as a template to engineer effective memeplexes.
2.)Propositional Memeplex Theory and Language Structure
An overview of the formal logic used in this section can be seen in appendix A.
A memeplex or a system of mutually reinforcing memes or ideas operate and propagate as a collective unit. A simple example of the collective nature of memeplexes can be found in the structure of a language. In any dictionary two things are generally true the words that are defined are defined by other words, and there is a limit to the number of words in the dictionary. In what I will call propositional memeplex theory any other memeplex, or in general any logical system, has this same structure and is thus based on the following premises:
1.The ideas in a memeplex are defined by other memes or ideas in the same memeplex.
2.There is a limit to the number of ideas or memes in a memeplex.
This implies that any memeplex or logical system is circular at some level. By reducing the complexity of a logical system to its bare minimum we can understand the fundamental archetypal logical structure of a generic memeplex. This can be done by writing the memeplex in the form of propositional logic and then performing what I will call propositional reduction to it.
Logical systems follow the two basic rules of propositional calculus. These rules are:
1. If an element A exists within a valid statement B, and another valid statement C replaces A where ever it exists in B to create statement D, then statement D is valid.
2. If a statement A is equivalent to statement B, and A occurs within statement C, then if B is replaced by A in C to create statement D, this new statement D is equivalent to C.
By exclusively using the second rule I can perform propositional reduction on a logical system by continually simplifying by replacing simple variables for statements in it, until it is either reduced to a tautology or to a bare minimum of non-tautologous logical structure.
In any logical system any element, A, within that system must be related to any other element, B, before or after it by any of the three logical operators, “then” (>), “and” (*), and “or” (v). This allows for a relationship that takes one of six possible forms:
1.(A*B) (A and B) 2.(B*A) (B and A)
3.(AvB) (A or B) 4.(BvA) (B or A)
5.(A>B) (A then B) 6.(B>A) (B then A)
Using the commutative rule of replacement it can be shown that statements 1 and 2 are logically equivalent to each other, and that statements 3 and 4 are logically equivalent to each other. Thus using the second rule of propositional calculus whenever statements of the form 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 appear so long as they both share the same components they can both be replaced by statements C, and D which represent respectively, the conjunction of components A and B or the addition of those components.
Since we are able to replace any statements of the form (A*B) and (AvB) by single components the only remaining statements which will have meaningful logical structure in a logical system after we have done the replacements will be statements of the forms 5 and 6. By using conditional exchange we can convert any statement of the form A>B into a statement of the form ~AvB. Then using the commutative rule we can convert any statement of the form ~AvB into a statement of the form Bv~A.
This leaves us with two equivalent possible sets of forms of statements with which to combine the elements in any given logical system:
1.A>B and B>A
2.A>B and Bv~A
By themselves each of these forms are tautologous and could be replaced by a single component. By substituting A>B for B in B>A we have a statement of the form (A>B)>A or rather (A>B)>C if we want to avoid confusion by replacing the second A with a C (we can do this since none of these components are actually there to represent anything but are there just to illustrate the logical structure between the components). Likewise B can also be substituted for (A>B) in Bv~A to produce (A>B)v~A or rather (A>B)v~C (again replacing the second A with a C to avoid confusion). For practical reasons I will tend to choose the form (A>B)v~C over its logical equivalent form (A>B)>C. If you notice that the first form does not follow from the second form logically, remember it is again because the components A,B, and C are all interchangeable placeholders here that exist only for the purpose of revealing the logical structure of a given system.
You may be asking why not replace statements 5 and 6 by single components since they are both tautologous and reduce the logical system to statements of the forms 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 instead. This can be done as well. After replacing the other statements with single components the final logical structure of the system becomes A*B*C when first replacing 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 with single components, and AvBvC when replacing 1 and 2 and 5 and 6 first. Based on this any logical system can be reduced to three simple statements of the forms:
1.A*B*C
2.AvBvC
3.(A>B)v~C
Statements 1 and 2 though not tautologous are trivial. So long as the system has three components in it, and is therefore non-tautologous, those statements are going to be true automatically and readily reproducible from the fact that they exist in the third statement. Because of this we can take statement 3 as being the single non-trivial archetypal logical form of the most basic structure of any non-tautological logical system. For future reference I will refer to statement 3 as the propositionally reduced form or PRF for short.
Implicit in the PRF is the archetype that is the basis for every definition. “A” (the object, idea or meme to be defined) must have “B” (a set of defining attributes or qualities) or it isn’t “C”(the defining term). Because the PRF has this structure it is useful as a template in engineering and controlling the implicit definitions in a memeplex.
I know it's a little abstract. Just skim through it if you want. The important part is the logical form (A>B)v~C I come to at the end. That's the basic template for framing any of your terminology and catch phrases in.
1.)The Basic Concept of Memetics
Memetics is the study of memes. What are memes? Memes are the social analog of genes. Like a gene they are replicating informational structures but unlike a gene they reproduce in a sociobiological setting as opposed to a hereditary setting. An example of a meme is a catch phrase or a popular belief that replicates by spreading from person to person.
Oftentimes several memes form into a mutually reinforcing structure called a memeplex that often represents an ideology or belief system. Memes usually survive better in the context of a memeplex where they provide justification for other memes favored by the person carrying them and are in turn justified by those memes.
Memetic engineering is the art of artificially creating and manipulating memeplexes. For the rest of this booklet I will describe the structure of memeplexes and show how this structure can be used as a template to engineer effective memeplexes.
2.)Propositional Memeplex Theory and Language Structure
An overview of the formal logic used in this section can be seen in appendix A.
A memeplex or a system of mutually reinforcing memes or ideas operate and propagate as a collective unit. A simple example of the collective nature of memeplexes can be found in the structure of a language. In any dictionary two things are generally true the words that are defined are defined by other words, and there is a limit to the number of words in the dictionary. In what I will call propositional memeplex theory any other memeplex, or in general any logical system, has this same structure and is thus based on the following premises:
1.The ideas in a memeplex are defined by other memes or ideas in the same memeplex.
2.There is a limit to the number of ideas or memes in a memeplex.
This implies that any memeplex or logical system is circular at some level. By reducing the complexity of a logical system to its bare minimum we can understand the fundamental archetypal logical structure of a generic memeplex. This can be done by writing the memeplex in the form of propositional logic and then performing what I will call propositional reduction to it.
Logical systems follow the two basic rules of propositional calculus. These rules are:
1. If an element A exists within a valid statement B, and another valid statement C replaces A where ever it exists in B to create statement D, then statement D is valid.
2. If a statement A is equivalent to statement B, and A occurs within statement C, then if B is replaced by A in C to create statement D, this new statement D is equivalent to C.
By exclusively using the second rule I can perform propositional reduction on a logical system by continually simplifying by replacing simple variables for statements in it, until it is either reduced to a tautology or to a bare minimum of non-tautologous logical structure.
In any logical system any element, A, within that system must be related to any other element, B, before or after it by any of the three logical operators, “then” (>), “and” (*), and “or” (v). This allows for a relationship that takes one of six possible forms:
1.(A*B) (A and B) 2.(B*A) (B and A)
3.(AvB) (A or B) 4.(BvA) (B or A)
5.(A>B) (A then B) 6.(B>A) (B then A)
Using the commutative rule of replacement it can be shown that statements 1 and 2 are logically equivalent to each other, and that statements 3 and 4 are logically equivalent to each other. Thus using the second rule of propositional calculus whenever statements of the form 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 appear so long as they both share the same components they can both be replaced by statements C, and D which represent respectively, the conjunction of components A and B or the addition of those components.
Since we are able to replace any statements of the form (A*B) and (AvB) by single components the only remaining statements which will have meaningful logical structure in a logical system after we have done the replacements will be statements of the forms 5 and 6. By using conditional exchange we can convert any statement of the form A>B into a statement of the form ~AvB. Then using the commutative rule we can convert any statement of the form ~AvB into a statement of the form Bv~A.
This leaves us with two equivalent possible sets of forms of statements with which to combine the elements in any given logical system:
1.A>B and B>A
2.A>B and Bv~A
By themselves each of these forms are tautologous and could be replaced by a single component. By substituting A>B for B in B>A we have a statement of the form (A>B)>A or rather (A>B)>C if we want to avoid confusion by replacing the second A with a C (we can do this since none of these components are actually there to represent anything but are there just to illustrate the logical structure between the components). Likewise B can also be substituted for (A>B) in Bv~A to produce (A>B)v~A or rather (A>B)v~C (again replacing the second A with a C to avoid confusion). For practical reasons I will tend to choose the form (A>B)v~C over its logical equivalent form (A>B)>C. If you notice that the first form does not follow from the second form logically, remember it is again because the components A,B, and C are all interchangeable placeholders here that exist only for the purpose of revealing the logical structure of a given system.
You may be asking why not replace statements 5 and 6 by single components since they are both tautologous and reduce the logical system to statements of the forms 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 instead. This can be done as well. After replacing the other statements with single components the final logical structure of the system becomes A*B*C when first replacing 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 with single components, and AvBvC when replacing 1 and 2 and 5 and 6 first. Based on this any logical system can be reduced to three simple statements of the forms:
1.A*B*C
2.AvBvC
3.(A>B)v~C
Statements 1 and 2 though not tautologous are trivial. So long as the system has three components in it, and is therefore non-tautologous, those statements are going to be true automatically and readily reproducible from the fact that they exist in the third statement. Because of this we can take statement 3 as being the single non-trivial archetypal logical form of the most basic structure of any non-tautological logical system. For future reference I will refer to statement 3 as the propositionally reduced form or PRF for short.
Implicit in the PRF is the archetype that is the basis for every definition. “A” (the object, idea or meme to be defined) must have “B” (a set of defining attributes or qualities) or it isn’t “C”(the defining term). Because the PRF has this structure it is useful as a template in engineering and controlling the implicit definitions in a memeplex.
