Should you be puzzled if you find yourself one day admiring thoughts of Plato and another day those of Aristotle? One day of Hegel and next day of Wittgenstein? One day of Einstein and next day of Lee Smolin? One day of Obama and another of Trump? Do these shifts of your admiration show weakness in your reasoning? Namely: how can you admire thoughts of those that oppose the thoughts of another, that you admire as well. And when I say admire I mean: incorporating somebody else’s memes in your personal reasoning, meme complex system.
There is no need to be puzzled. There is no inconsistency. As long as you appreciate multiverse of systems not trying to find a common denominator of all thoughts, a reduction of thought. And as long (even worse) you don’t suppose that your thoughts are eligible to represent that common denominator. Your thoughts, concepts, theories (if they are expressed) are not in any kind of meta position to any other; they are (like every other) parallel. Socrates is parallel to Thomas Aquinas is parallel to Descartes is parallel to Newton, is parallel to Maxwell is parallel to Marx is parallel to Darwin is parallel to Nietzsche, is parallel to Groucho Marx… Illusion that you can create a common denominator leads to eclecticism in one direction and to an illusion that for instance Higgs boson really is a kind of god particle that will allow grand unifying theory to emerge.
It is not hard to see resemblance of this reasoning with multiple draft scenario of Dan Dennett. Like consciousness should (could) be perceived as emerging multiple draft property of human being (here I follow a notion that consciousness is a property of human being and not of brains), so are thoughts of humankind neurons (individuals) to be understood as emerging property of humankind consciousness emerging in a parallel multiple draft meme complex cloud. And cloud here should not be perceived as having a physical locus – since it is “only” emerging property.
In memetic world positions are not hierarchically ordered. Not only that consistency does not rely on external reality it is also internally improbable. My internal memetic environment changes as much as environment changes. For it is the sole function of any living organism and its subsystems down to gene (and perhaps even lower) to sustain changes in environment. And one can not relate to changing environment but with internal changes. Only fools have privilege to stay consistent.