Re: More on what memes are made of

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Feb 10 2000 - 20:19:27 GMT

  • Next message: John Wilkins: "Re: More on what memes are made of"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA23446 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:17:26 GMT
    Message-Id: <200002102016.PAA16513@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:19:27 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
    Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of
    In-reply-to: <00020918204600.00915@faichney>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
    Organization: Reborn Technology
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of
    Date sent: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:16:49 +0000
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > On Wed, 09 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Wade T.Smith wrote:
    > >> >>My point is that arrow, trajectory and system are all
    > >> >>equally real.
    > >> >
    > >> >But if "meaning has [no] place in the foundations of memetics", then of
    > >> >what use is _reality_ in it?
    > >> >
    > >> >;-)
    > >>
    > >> I'll ignore the emoticon just in case you're only half-joking.
    > >>
    > >> The concept of reality belongs to the system we're using to examine the
    > >> foundations of memetics, which I suppose we might loosely call "philosophy".
    > >>
    > >Meaning has an essential place in the foundations of philosophy;
    > >one of its main branches (along with logic, epistemology and ontology) is
    > >axiology, or the theory of value (usually divided into ethics - theory
    > >of the good - and aesthetics - theory of the beautiful). Logic itself
    > >has to do with the structures of true, false and meaningless
    > >statements. I should know; I have a degree in the field.
    >
    > Good for you, and so do I. Unfortunately, it does not help me understand the
    > relevance here of the place of meaning in philosophy. Perhaps you'd be good
    > enough to explicate your reasoning.
    >
    With what part of philosophy are you proposing to construct your
    "ontology", if not ontology itself? Ontology is inextricably linked
    with epistemology, for our range of possible choices as to the
    explorable being or nature of that which we purport to study, and its
    relation(s) to contiguous objects is circumscribed by the scope of
    our possible knowing of it. And what can be known of being but
    meaning? The per/conceptual interrelation between the intending
    mind and its object (which is in this case memetics) is prescriptive
    for the struction (structure/function) of both intender and object; this
    interrelation is as it is, and not in other ways, due to the nature of
    the polar relata (mind and object) perceptually and conceptually,
    that is, intentionally, interrelated, and thus the interrelation
    functions as a semiologic, serving to inform us as to the character
    of the relata so mediated. This character is expressed
    semantically, i.e. in terms of what the object MEANS to the
    KNOWER of that meaning, what it MEANS to be (and be capable
    of being) a KNOWER of such a MEANT object, and what
    KNOWING itself can be said to MEAN when employed to relate
    such a KNOWER with such a KNOWN. To deny the existence,
    reality or relevance of either intentionality (the intending) or the
    intender is tantamount to denying the same concerning the
    intended object, memetics, itself, for just as perceiver-perceiving-
    perceived, conceiver-conceiving-conceived, knower-knowing-known,
    rememberer-remembering-remembered or imaginer-imagining-
    imagined, intender-intending-intended is a tripartate structure built
    like a three-legged stool; remove any leg and the other two cannot
    stand. Notice that also meaning is essential to such study, for
    there is no other basis upon which we may distinguish or
    differentiate our chosen object of study from any other; the
    discriminatory function which intentionality performs is both an
    existential and a hermeneutic one, (these - existential and
    hermeneutic - are the two main branches of phenomenology, by
    the way, and all ontology must be phenomenology, for all we can
    know of being is what appears to us and what we can deduce from
    that by means of logic) involving both thatness and whatness, both
    being and meaning, for from the co-primordial basis where the two
    are fused in presence, they diverge, but meaning, although from
    this point dependent upon being, nevertheless elaborates upon and
    characterizes that brute and meaningless (except for its presence
    to the observing subjectivity) being, and is the only modality
    capable of doing so. Without including meaning, you lose all
    ability to either characterize the object of study (memetics) or
    differentiate it from other objects (and these two intentional
    functions are themselves complementary). Since you profess to a
    philosophy degree, I'm sure you can understand these trenchant
    and undeniable methodological exigencies.

    Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy
    Pronunciation: än-'tä-l&-jE
    Function: noun
    Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy
    Date: circa 1721
    1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and
    relations of being
    2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of
    existents
    - on·tol·o·gist /-jist/ noun

    Main Entry: epis·te·mol·o·gy
    Pronunciation: i-"pis-t&-'mä-l&-jE
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to
    understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand -- more at
    STAND
    Date: circa 1856
    : the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge
    especially with reference to its limits and validity
    - epis·te·mo·log·i·cal /-m&-'lä-ji-k&l/ adjective
    - epis·te·mo·log·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
    - epis·te·mol·o·gist /-'mä-l&-jist/ noun

    > --
    > Robin Faichney
    >
    >
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
    >
    >

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 10 2000 - 20:17:28 GMT