Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA25610 (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 18:40:17 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What are memes made of? Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:20:19 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002100130.UAA08090@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00021117244301.00360@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>
>> William van den heuvel:
>>
>> So, if you like to bring in the "intentional stance" it would have to follow
>> the "meaning stance". Hence, we now have four stances:
>> 1.- the physical stance
>> 2.- the formal stance
>> 3.- the meaning stance
>> 4.- the intentional stance
>>
>Meaning and intention are co-primordial in the sense that there
>must be meaning differences for there to be selective intention, but
>selective intention is necessary to imbue particular meanings. For
>every intention, there must be both an intending applied to an
>intended, and an intender; for every meaning (noun) there must be
>both a meaning (verb) applied to a meant, and a meaner.
Is this a development of "ordinary language" philosophy?
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 18:40:20 GMT