Re: More on what memes are made of

From: Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2000 - 17:27:27 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #119"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA01359 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:47:25 GMT
    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: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:27:27 +0000
    X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21]
    Content-Type: text/plain
    References: <200002102016.PAA16513@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Message-Id: <00021217355802.00510@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:
    >
    >> >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...

    If this was an attempt to communicate, it's something of a failure. On the
    other hand, it might be considered quite good obfuscation. All I can get from
    it is that because meaning is required in philosophy, all philosophy is about
    meaning. You seem unable to produce anything but word salad. Whether there's
    anything worthwhile behind it would be hard to judge, but I've noticed no such
    indication so far.

    --
    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 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 15:47:27 GMT