Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA03753 (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 23:36:06 GMT Message-Id: <200002142336.SAA21554@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:38:20 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of In-reply-to: <00021217355802.00510@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: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:27:27 +0000
Send 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.
>
Apparently you either lack the degree you claimed, or do not
deserve it.
> --
> 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 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 23:36:07 GMT