If you ever wondered what love is, you’d probably have ping-ponged from one sect to another; of passion and feelings for “loving” or “being in love” with someone, and the informative explanation of love as a mere biological process that takes place in the brain cells. However, either sect you cherish, you’d still be lacking proper answer to the foremost question – “what is love?”
Since the core of the nineties, anthropologists have accepted the concept of love, even tried to extract a practical conclusion of its meaning (mostly pronounced as the ‘essence’ of love), depending on recent developments of the theory of evolution, within the sides of genetics, and mainstream interpreting of Darwin’s Natural Selection with its relation to existence and conduct of all species. However that Charles Darwin himself did not know about genes, where shiningly his theory missed its mechanism, anthropologists, accordingly, have been studying human existence and conduct through the mainstream understanding of human’s evolution, not through the processes of natural selection.
In 2005 controversial book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins attached the definition of love with human sexual desire, also interpreted human conduct according to sexual ambition, where explicated forwardly to survive extinction of the specie, therefore maintain breeding. Also, tried to connect being dogmatic with the same instinct, declaring that if a man wills to die in a war due to religious or sacred matters, will pass the will down through his offspring. Factually, Dawkins’ supply can easily be justified; if a generation has been raised on cherishing dying in battle due to religious or sacred beliefs, mostly will inherit practical will to die for religious or sacred causes.
The impact of religious faith on human conduct, I prefer to label as “dogma”, which if practiced as well as inherited, would be materialized through the process carried out by memes. Hence, re-defining dogma as a sort of a material form that pushes to the question – do memes affect genes?
I have no problem admitting the ‘inner status’ of one’s ‘being’ dogmatic determined by subjective thought (combined group of ideas) triggered by feelings, emerging from the thought, of a situation, where, subsequently, influencing human conduct. Herein, as a serious assumption, all of thoughts, feelings, dogma and love are originated in the brain cells, meaning that all of them follow or take part in the same biological process.
In a direct way, brain cells control what human beings are capable of thinking of or feeling. Therefore, supposing that united thought with coherent feelings is a ‘meme’ (as a unit of process), would facilitate concluding unprecedented comprehension of ‘inner-status’-es under the influence of the process of being in love or being dogmatic, which is a complex phase of a group of memes bounded together, developing a structure form* that takes control over the body.
Conclusion, therefore, is to get to consider the intellectual, non-biological or non-material matter in biological calculations, seeking so far to uncover what a biological construction of a non-biological structure could be, as subordinated of biological process.
In 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins presented the term “memes” in view of his theory of altruism, where he reversed the assumption of gene’s ability to being unselfish in a highly evolved manner of ethics, saying that genes on contrary are able to be self-altruist against other genes. All I can say, here and now, is that I denounce Dawkins’ introductory to the concept of ‘memes’ in altruist view, that I prefer to discuss separately.
On the other hand, my investigation is built on the principles of biological anthropology, considering the sciences of Genetics and then-derived Memetics, in the limit of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Natural Selection, as presented in his books “On the Origin of Species” published in 1859, and “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” published in 1871.
The notion of this thesis is to uncover the mere construction of a meme in primal state, in order to get to know the biological structure of its individual composition. This method goes further than the prevailing new atheistic view of the theory of evolution as a matter of empirical fact, which exactly reflects the status of “being dogmatic” I’m investigating.
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to obtain new objectified vision for the world in general (nature and species, with focus on primates and homo-sapiens), which is the most valuable achievement to a philosopher. This study is mostly regarded as philosophy, not utterly scientific, primarily, relying on the “subject and object problematic”, passing through epistemology in relation to the philosophy of the sciences and logic. So that to examine the memetic structure* (of love and/or dogma), as the strongest ‘inner-status’ or subjective motivator of human conduct, revising history of religions according to mythology of rituals is inevitable.
This study recommends prequels that discuss the (biological-anthropological) subjective-objective combination. Though the term seems to be contradicting itself, it means the lining between what’s subjective and what’s objective; such as religious faith influence over Muslim women to be veiled. Hence, subjective-objective combinations deal with issues that aren’t materialistic in construction but possess within objectivity; like work, religion, society, the state, and of course dogma.
I tend to admit that everything is a form, or at least a part, of a process, functions randomly without at all intentions, and occurs because ‘memes’ are able to co-operate – in a strictly compulsive Natural Selection process.
*A Memetic Structure would be like the hand grip, in order to break its elements it must be open, so that each element would have the ability to separate, however, each element in itself is a meme, seeking one another to bond with; in process, memes fit only to survive, regardless of anything else.