Pemes - "Hooray!" to Mr. Mann (Composite)

Freespeak (
Sat, 07 Mar 1998 21:47:55 -0700

At 11:23 PM 3/5/98 -0700, Who Is John Galt?

<<> wrote:


>Realize I'm coming into the middle of something here, but you

>Julian Jaynes.


[Note: Earlier parts of this "peme debate"

-- including the "peme rules" -- can be found

at <<>.]


>First, I'd like to say "Hooray!" to Mr. Mann. I think he's hit the

>on the head however tongue in cheek he may be.


>Yes, studied Mr. Jaynes' extraordinary manuscript in some detail 10

>years ago or so. But I always had the feeling that it was a work in

>progress; that his premise wasn't finished yet. The book ended with

>idea that he would be writing a sequel. And I anxiously awaited it for

>several years. But I never saw it. Did you? I had the awkward feeling

>that he kept on going until he talked himself out of his original


At 08:28 AM 3/6/98 GMT, (Magnetic Field)


<bold> A very enlightning post. I have suspected such a

connection between epilepsy and so-called mystic experiences

for some time. I have epilepsy myself and I'm usually seizure

free but I have an abnormal brain wave pattern at all times.

My brain kicks into an alpha state at the drop of a hat. I am

a pretty mellow person by nature (most of the time) and I have

a lot of what used to be called "women's intuition". I pick up

on the feeling and moods of others quite easily (which is not

always a good thing). Being able to feel the pain or joy of

others can be too much of a good thing.

It was for that reason the the ancient Romans called

seizures "the sacred disease" because many of the temple people

who made predictions suffered from seizures. History records

that Julius Caesar suffered seizures and Vincent Van Gogh also.

There is plenty of evidence that Vincent Van Gogh was in a

mystic delusional state much of the time.


At 08:47 AM 3/6/98 -0600, wrote:


>Everyone take note:


>1) Chomsky was right in the aspect of his work in which he noted that

>there is some sort of inborn mechanism which directs the organism to

>learn language. This is akin to Piaget and Montessori's work on

>sensitive periods in which an organism is available to learn certain

>behaviors. Thee is a reason that human babies learn to walk at about

>12 months and to talk at about 24 months, etc. Their brains become

>avaiblable to the info and stimulate appropriate exploration. While

>various stage theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, etc. are simplistic, the

>basic sequential approach to human development is logical and correct

>for a reason.


>2) Jaynes' hypothesis bears some reflection, but is not the answer to

>all -- the concept of "psychosis" to me does not fit the facts.


>3) The "god module" research turns out to be old -- at least as far

>as the late '70's. The theory as I have read/assembled it is rather

>that there exists a previously very useful module in the lower cortex

>somewhere in the temporal lobe (derived from the epileptic connection)

>which allows for unreasoned beliefs -- hence god/government, whatever

>their power from this module which may have protected our ancestors

>the wort of mass suicides we saw recently in that cult -- if they

>bvelieved in higher power and authority, life could be explained.

>However, now that we know better, we are able to place a cortical

>overlay of knowledge over that process and develop reasoned

>understanding. Watch what happens to folks not only with epilepsy but

>anoxia and other types of cerebral trauma and those near-death

>experiences -- why do all these people suddenly get religion -- they

>the cognitive overlay to the "god module", the ability to fight

>with fact, as it were.


>4) Michael Gazzaniga, using his own work and that of Leon Festinger,

>done a very nice job of clarifying the brain/behavior relationship in

>his book "The Social Brain". Put this together with Axelrod's

>of Cooperation" and you have a concise theory demonstrating why

>will, indeed, work given a population with intact, highly evolved


>5) The above synthesis is part of an upcoming lecture I am developing

>the objectivist community (C)1998 Center for Conscious Living.

At 12:04 AM 3/6/98 PST, wrote:


>It would be interesting to see comparative studies

>with animals other than humans to see whether there

>is a parallel "alpha-male module."


What relationship or connection might their be between the

animal "pecking-order program" and the human peme-program?

Kira indicates that, "[T]here is some sort of inborn

mechanism which directs the organism to learn language."

This sounds "instinctive." Is it possible that aspects

of our "standard language" are inborn and irrationally

based on the "alpha-male modules" or "pecking-order

programs" of our genetic/evolutionary ancestors? In

other words, is the human peme-program a built-in part

of "standard English?" -- In which case, to clear certain

pemes from our brains, we have to destroy certain parts

of "standard English?" -- and call this form of "cleansed

English" "Freespeak" or "F-Prime" (short for "Free-Prime"

or "Freedom-Prime).

At 10:49 AM 3/6/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <<>


>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Freespeak wrote:


>> The distinction between "linguistic thought itself"

>> and "the ideas thought in it" is important.


>> Deep pemes are inherent in "linguistic thought itself."

>> To clear deep pemes from your brain, you not only have

>> to change certain ideas, you have to question, attack,

>> and destroy the "vessels that contain" the ideas, so to

>> speak.


>Well, yes, you're absolutely right... there are, ummm, zemes

>inherent in linguistic thought itself....


>This is exactly the point of Zen Buddhism--to recognize that

>choosing to think in linguistic terms implicitly limits the range

>of mental experience one can have. Through various paradoxes,

>"koans", and the like, one learns to question the whole idea

>of linguistic thinking...


>Or something like that ;->

At 11:04 AM 3/6/98 -0700, Dave Dawson <<> wrote:


>In a message dated 98-03-06 01:55:44 EST, Frederick Mann writes:


>> "It is not clear why such dedicated neural machinery

>> ... for religion may have evolved," the team reported

>> Tuesday at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience

>> in New Orleans. One possibility, the scientists

>> suggested, was to encourage tribe loyalty or reinforce

>> kinship ties or the stability of a closely knit clan.


>I wonder if you have to be theistically inclined, as I am,

>to see the humor in this. My understanding of evolutionary

>theory is that it has/had no direction/planning (intelligence/

>God) behind it, and can pretty fairly be characterized as an

>accident that is taking a very long time to happen.


>Contrast that with "One possibility, the scientists suggested...

>Who/what are they speculating wanted to encourage tribe loyalty,



>Based upon evolutionary theory, shouldn't they have said "had

>the effect of encouraging...?"


>> Maybe the

>> phenomena of "god worship" and "government worship"

>> have a great deal in common -- part of a general

>> "master peme program?"


>Was this *intended* to be an understatement? 8>)


We could think of religious memes as "remes," and

distinguish between "surface remes" and "deep remes."

It seems to me that a significant number of people

fairly easily dispense with irratinal surface remes,

but that irrational deep remes aren't so easily

dislodged. Maybe you have to become a Zen master...

At 08:48 AM 3/6/98 +0100, (feguilaz) wrote:


>I've been reading in the last days more and more discussions about

>Pemes, Kenes... Ok, if you want, but at the beginning was the chaos.

>What is chaos but unclassification? I'm not specialist on your

>areas, but it seems to be a 'speed problem': you have detected Memes

>sure they exists!) and, suddenly, you feel you must classify in areas

>political, as Pemes). But you've loosed perspective. You don't know

>how Memes works. Without this information nobody is able to explain

>Pemes, neither Kenes... or whatever you want. Imagine a human cell: are

>ready to explain how the nucleus works without a previous look at the

>general behavior? No way. You must go back and redefine in deep the

>concept. Anyway, the basic idea is amazing. Go ahead! Don't jump



I basically *inferred* the peme program from my

own studies and experiences, and by observing

the communication and behavior of of both pro-

and anti-freedom people. Gurdjieff, Stirner,

and Nietzsche helped me a great deal.

At 12:50 PM 3/6/98 +0000, colin <<> wrote:


>If you want to read about mind parasites controlling the whole show,

>should read the first story in "Otherness" by David Brin. I can't

>the name of it. Even if the concept is a tad silly, it's still

At 09:58 AM 3/6/98 -0500, Robert <<> wrote:


>>Posted by:


>>>"The problem with the Unconscious is that it's



>>Yes! In general, just as in my areas of ignorance

>>I tend to be ignorant of my ignorance, where I'm

>>unconscious I'm also unconscious of my unconsciousness.

>>Both ignorance and unconsciousness tend to hide



>>>>Maybe you could make a list of all the pemes

>>>>you've either cleared from your brain, or were

>>>>never infected by in the first place.


>have you looked at the 8 circuit model?

>If not, I can mail you some info on it -- just

>drop me a private mail and Ill attach it.


In order to clear deep pemes from your brain, it

may be necessary that you activate what Timothy

Leary called, "Circuit 6: the Neuro-electric circuit

-- brain consciousness." See also "NEURO-ELECTRIC --

(Metaprogramming, Psychotronic) (Psychic Intelligence)

at <<>.

>>>Easier said than done, of course. How do we

>>>know if there's something invisible out there,

>>>or nothing there at all? Hardest of all, how

>>>can we even start to look for what, by definition,

>>>we don't even realize is there?


>The finger cant point at itself, but you _can_ step

>outside of yourself (in a manner of speaking)and view

>the situation. Again, easier said than done and it takes

>years and years. It definitely takes a shift in your mode

>of perception, which is not an intellectual exercise but

>rather a very physical one.


>From the time that I started clearing deep pemes from my

brain, it took seven years to complete the job -- as far

as I'm aware. For an example of someone who did it virtually

instantly, see <<>.

At 12:30 PM 3/6/98 -0500, "John Fast"

<<> wrote:


>Frederick Mann wrote:




>>>>Is anyone out there interested in writing an SF novel

>>>>on pemes. I would be happy to collaborate and ensure

>>>>publication, if we can produce a worthwhile product.


>We ought to continue _that_ part of the discussion

>on the LibFic list.

Good idea. This debate may generate much of the material

we need, including much dialog.


>>>I've been interested in this ever since I read

>>>Jaynes' _The Origin of Consciousness in the

>>>Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_.


>>I've extended the Jaynes paradigm to include what I call

>>"bicameral stage 2" -- see


>>Maybe the inability to recognize pemes as such is

>>an aspect of bicameral stage 2.


>IOW, we understand that pemes exist, but we

>don't know exactly which ones or where, right?


We know exactly what they are -- at least those of us

who've been working in this area -- as far as we are

aware. From past experience I've learned that it

usually doesn't work to reveal them up front.





>>Two questions may help us identify the pemes:


>>(1) Which words/concepts -- if I accept and use

>>them the way most people habitually do -- place

>>me at a disadvantage in relation to the political

>>"masters?" (Which words tend to increase the power

>>of politicians and bureaucrats, while reducing the

>>power of their victims?)


>>(2) Which words, if the political "masters" didn't

>>have them nor any equivalents for them, would

>>dramatically reduce the power of politicians and



>It sounds like you're talking about developing or

>applying consciousness techniques to political

>philosophy. Sounds excellent to me.


>Also, have you ever done any consciousness workshops?

>(Plug, plug . . . )


I've been working on my brain and consciousness for

several decades, including many workshops, sensory

isolation, etc.

At 08:18 AM 3/6/98 -0500, "James Daugherty"

<<> wrote:


>Collectives are real entities, conscious beings. They subsume
individuals to

>the extent that individuals are unconscious. Memes are to collectives
as genes

>are to biological organisms.


The peme program has spoken.

>As Gurdjieff pointed-out, most individuals fail to be individuals. They

>cells in social organisms controlled by the collective's memetic

>field....similar to the Borg.


Reading Gurdjieff's "First Series" -- 'Beelzebub's

Tales to His Grandson' with the stated objective,

"To destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises

whatever, in the mentation and feelings of the

reader, the beliefs and views, by centuries rooted

in him, about everything existing in the world" --

could help develop the thinking skills to clear

from your brain pemes like, "Collectives are real

entities, conscious beings."

Frederick Mann


"The [one] who knows what freedom is will find a way to be free."

-- Robert LeFevre

"We are free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it."

-- William Faulkner

"The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

-- Steve Biko



Practical Freedom - Live free. | Ideal meeting place to network & brain-

Practical knowledge, methods, | storm new, creative, and innovative

skills - Millionaire Reports. | freedom ideas & initiatives. Subscribe:

Expertise at your fingertips: | E-mail | with SUBSCRIBE in the message body.