Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA04827 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:23:16 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:22:09 +0100 Subject: Re: What are memes made of? From: William van den Heuvel <heuvel@muc.de> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B4CEF533.14B%heuvel@muc.de> In-Reply-To: <200002100130.UAA08090@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Joe E. Dees:
> 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.
William van den Heuvel:
If you intend to convey what I take you to mean then you seem to be
suggesting a kind of feedback loop in which meaning and intention mutually
give rise to each other. If this is what you mean then I get the picture
that meaning and intention are primordial relative to each other. This makes
me think that the intention of the meaning stance is to give meaning to the
intential stance. Does that sound right?
However, meanwhile Robin Faichney has indicated that he uses "intential
stance" in a medieval sense, which (judging from his explanation) doesn't
seem to be quite same as what I intended by "intential stance". From Robin
Faichney's point of view, what we say about meaning and intention probably
doesn't seem very relevant to him.
William van den Heuvel
heuvel@muc.de
===============================================================
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 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 11:23:19 GMT