Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA23946 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 11 Feb 2000 01:16:28 GMT Message-Id: <200002110116.UAA03564@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:18:33 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of References: <00020918204600.00915@faichney> In-reply-to: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000211093451@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:34:51 +1100
From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:16:49 +0000 robin@faichney.demon.co.uk (Robin
> Faichney) wrote:
>
> >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 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.
>
> I too have degrees in analytic philosophy, and indeed I'm still getting
> another one, but although I've read Frege, Dummett, Davidson, and
> Dretske, et al I still do not see how meaning qua representation escapes
> the constraints upon transmitted information sensu Shannon-Weaver or
> Kolmogorov-Chaitin, etc.
>
> Peircean semiotics is taken very seriously by a number of people I
> respect, but they all recognise that information and content are two
> different aspects of any message and that they do not relate directly.
>
Perhaps you should read the existential and hermeneutic
phenomenologists as well as the Greimassian semioticians, so
that you do not reduce communications between people to
physical interactions between things, and nothing more.
>
> --
>
> John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
> The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
> Melbourne, Australia
> <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au>
> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 01:16:30 GMT