Author
|
Topic: virus: Virus: parsing the metavirus. (Read 714 times) |
|
deadletter-j
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 84
Reputation: 5.01
Rate deadletter-j
How many Engstrom's does it take?
 
|
 |
virus: Virus: parsing the metavirus.
« on: 2005-02-09 20:36:37 » |
 |
I dropped some insertions into the CoV boards, and haven't yet seen a cascade. Rather than put a lot of noise into that space, I will try to begin the discussion here. This list is, after all, meta to CoV. One layer removed in a different direction of communication.
I posit that there is a way to describe reactions to memes in scientific language. In the long run, I hope to be able to bring the _evidence_ that we (deadletter, nutbutter, etc) are building of collective memetic attempts here, as well as to the other metacog lists, so that they can be a) understood, b)deconstructed and c) reconstructed with greater strength. First I would like to build a common conversation to place these videos in.
So I am starting with a simple insertion. One human to one human.
If you already use lingo to describe some of these phases, PLEASE let me know. I want to collect a scientific language of HOW we will talk about memetics. I want to get this party started!
First, I would like to specifically create two definitions.
1) Direct contact - the person's eyes, ears, nose, etc, come into information access with the meme.
2) Indirect contact - the person's sensing equipment (above) comes into contact with someone else who relays any information relevant to the meme.
|
Hijacking everything ever knew about anything.
|
|
|
Cassidy McGurk
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 128
Reputation: 7.55
Rate Cassidy McGurk
http://www.isec.info/ get me out of here!
|
|
Re: virus: Virus: parsing the metavirus.
« Reply #1 on: 2005-02-10 11:22:01 » |
|
Go on then! I'll take the bait. 
Shut up, you crazy fucker!
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:36:37 +0000, global_hijack@speakeasy.net
<global_hijack@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> I dropped some insertions into the CoV boards, and haven't yet seen a cascade. Rather than put a lot of noise into that space, I will try to begin the discussion here. This list is, after all, meta to CoV. One layer removed in a different direction of communication.
>
> I posit that there is a way to describe reactions to memes in scientific language. In the long run, I hope to be able to bring the _evidence_ that we (deadletter, nutbutter, etc) are building of collective memetic attempts here, as well as to the other metacog lists, so that they can be a) understood, b)deconstructed and c) reconstructed with greater strength. First I would like to build a common conversation to place these videos in.
>
> So I am starting with a simple insertion. One human to one human.
>
> If you already use lingo to describe some of these phases, PLEASE let me know. I want to collect a scientific language of HOW we will talk about memetics. I want to get this party started!
>
> First, I would like to specifically create two definitions.
>
> 1) Direct contact - the person's eyes, ears, nose, etc, come into information access with the meme.
>
> 2) Indirect contact - the person's sensing equipment (above) comes into contact with someone else who relays any information relevant to the meme.
>
> From this perspective, we could say that we are all in indirect contact with every meme on the planet. Let's address this later.
>
> First Contact
>
> Okay, direct contact. The person has a Ming Vase placed in front of them.
>
> What happens next? Let's suppose their eyes pass over it and they accept it into their proximity without mentioning it or visibly reacting to it.
>
> Not only would I like to call this a root-level insertion, I would call this a _successful_ root level insertion. By the time the brain notices the meme, we would like it to have been a part of the furniture for a long time.
>
> Implied Strategy: Dump so much information that the most important points are lost in the noise. At first... ;l
>
> Second contact
>
> Interesting and informative is people's second contact with the meme. With the Ming vase example, perhaps the second time a Ming vase is placed on the shelf, they notice it and narrow their eyes.
>
> They are connecting it to some other component in their brain. This is meta to 'just' seeing it - one level complex!
>
> Two points are connected with a line segment. This is the level of brain tickling band names we can never remember. We call this 'zazzing', the process of saying, "This is as this..." or "this zazz this".
>
> Implied Strategy: When dumping information into a person, look for two little muscles along the eyebrows, near the nose. These two muscles pinch together when people are connecting information. Not a scowl, more a focus. Watch for it. When it changes, notice! And for a real hoot, mention it to them. Watch them crawl outside themselves (into meta!) to try and see this pattern.
>
> Third contact
>
> On the third level of contact with the information, the person tends to have enough data to parse a pattern. Three dots, three line segments, a triangle. The third Ming vase prompts a response, "Hey, what's up with the Ming Vases?"
>
> This is the level of 'geeking out'. Every identity construct has a phase where the person wants to spread their new identity all over the place. If anyone responds to this email, it can be seen as them zazzing it to what they know and geeking out a response.
>
> Especially if we think in terms of collective processing! For every person who writes the Senator, 100 think about writing. This is why they count letters in each direction.
>
> Implied Strategy: I dump ideas, and I watch for them to connect with the [person, community, school, world] with a strong enough response that I can begin to nurture that response up into action. Dump information, watch for the information to zazz together into a geek out.
>
> Fourth contact
>
> Okay, once a person has come into contact with a meme enough times to articulate it, it is time to tread very, very lightly. Watch for the geeking out, watch for their reaction. Are they hostile, trying to shut down this information flow (hackable)? Are they seeking more information? If so, be careful to keep them in the mode of querying for more info. Keep them talking.
>
> Best strategy: ask questions at this point. Listen. Any talk about our topic is good talk - AND, if we're careful, it can go much further.
>
> Implied strategy: Dump information. On root levels, they grok what we mean. They zazz it together with other information. When it hits something in their knowledge that they connect it to, they geek out a response.
>
> Grok, Zazz, Geek... LISTEN. Listen really, really carefully. Listening is absolutely key, here. more on this later.
>
> Fifth exposure - cascading towards action
>
> Okay, so if a person can be brought to a conversation about, say, Palestine, have they been won over by our memes? Changed? Transformed?
>
> Naw. There is so much to say about four and five that they deserve their own emails, AFTER a discussion has taken place of the first five.
>
> So I've dumped information out there. If someone gets it, if it connects with what you know, and it makes you geek out a response, let's hear it!
>
> If the response is, "shut up, you crazy fucker!" well, I welcome that too! Then we can go meta and talk about action and reaction on listservs!
>
> -b
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I must remember to change this sig regularly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
