From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:01:38 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Mike writes
>
>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>>Was that a psychological necessity for them? If instead they
>>>had abandoned belief in natural rights and a Divine Approval,
>>>would they have been able to pull it off? (You see, I believe
>>>natural rights to be fictitious entities, and suppose instead
>>>that only legal rights actually exist, and that these exist
>>>only in a social contract---as Charles was saying.)
>>
>>The meme they were competing with was the Divine Right of Kings.
>>So it wasn't just a psychological necessity for them--it was a
>>memetic necessity for mindshare.
>
>
> What is mindshare? There is some other -----share that is just
> on the tip of my tongue, but not quite there, so I probably know
> what you mean. But perhaps you could say a bit more.
>
> You are claiming it was necessary to propagate the meme "rights
> are from nature and nature's God", or else lose out? That's what
> I meant to ask before.
"Mindshare" is a marketing term that (approximately) means "aggregate
prominence or salience (leaping to mind) in the minds of the target
audience"--and is often but not always used in senses related to
acceptance or approval rating. As a contrary case, al-Quaeda had a lot
of mindshare in New York City in late September 2001, but that's not
usually what commercial marketeers (who coined the term) emphasize.
I am not claiming necessity. I am describing a tactical choice which
makes sense in context.
I'm saying that given the extant, centuries-old memetic "installed base"
(to borrow jargon from the tech industry) of kings being literally
proclaimed to be ruling by the will of God (this mindshare being established
and ruthlessly promoted by Constantine, his successors, various Popes,
and every other royal rider on the By-the-Grace-of-God gravy train),
it _profited competitors for public acceptance of an alternative
social order to play as much as possible on the same field_, rather
than writing God out of the picture altogether.
I think, for instance, the text of the Magna Carta has some Godding-about
in it. Hmm. Yup. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magframe.htm
...I count five "God"s there.
Later, even if some of the most gifted minds of the Enlightenment were
closet atheists, they pretty much publicly all genuflected in the direction
of Deism. Or at least such is my impression.
If I were being argumentative a la Lysander Spooner, I might end my reply with:
For me, I _see_ no "social contract". Can you point to it, any more than
the Pope can point to God? Where is it written? When did I sign it?
But that would be cheap of me, since I don't really care about the answer;
so kindly pretend I didn't ask.
Cheerio,
MMB
>>Where does the DRoK originate?
>>I'd put it back at least as far as "In Hoc Signo Vincit"--Constantine's
>>claimed vision-leading-to-conversion in which he saw a blazing cross
>>in the sky and was told by the Christian God to whup the heathen butt.
>>I'm not sure if he saw the words in Latin or the Greek equivalent, or
>>if he made the whole thing up as great PR.
>>
>>I kind of think the whole (monotheistic-) God & country thing has all
>>been downhill from the time Constantine started doing his thing. Kill
>>for Christ. Now there's a meme that has worked overtime.
>>
>>MMB
>>
>>PS: I seem to have been using a lot of Latin lately.
>>The above means "In this sign I conquer".
>>He had all his men-in-arms paint it on their vestments and shields.
>>I'm told they made a lasting impression.
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST