Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA10275 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 4 Mar 2000 18:44:15 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:47:54 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200003030134.UAA11617@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00030417442002.00924@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote:
>> >This still leaves the question of what *level* memetics becomes a useful
>> >application, and I say, (after Dennett) that it is at the level of meaning rather than below that. (see "who's
>> >afraid of reductionism?" in DDI for more on this).
>>
>> I think maybe uncertainty about "meaning" and "intentionality" is causing a
>> problem here. Many take both of these terms to imply subjectivity, which I
>> don't think Dennett does.
>>
>How can an entity that does not possess subjectivity either mean
>or intend anything? Short answer: it can't. Subjectivity is an a
>priori sine qua non for both signification and intentionality.
Didn't you say you'd read all of Dennett's books? I suggest you reread The
Intentional Stance, at least. I'm sure you possess it, and Dennett's style is
infinitely more persuasive than mine, even for the average reader, nevermind
those with preconceptions.
>> >> My main concern is to say that memetics need, and
>> should, have no subjective element.
>>
>You believe, following your particular sect of your religion, that
>there is and can be no such creature as a subject, so you
>proselytizationally and self-contradictorally attempt to excise all
>reference to subjectivity from EVERYTHING. P. S. It is you
>yourSELF who is attempting this (whack from a staff).
You have no understanding of my position, whatsoever. For me, the subject is as
real as the object, and consciousness is as real as matter. The meaning of
"self" equivocates far too much for anything useful to be easily said about it,
including either that it "is real" or "is unreal". (You should not confuse
positions adopted in debates with "true beliefs" -- as, for instance, where I
have argued against the reality of the self. If you search carefully enough,
you'll find that early in that debate I revealed my true feelings, when I said
something to the effect that the self is neither real nor unreal, being a
useful concept in some contexts but not in others. But do try to bear in mind,
that was in virus, while we're now in memetics -- a distinction you've
neglected in the past, no doubt to the bemusement of most of your readers here.)
>> >>That's my main beef with Joe, too.
>> However, with subjectivity eliminated, I'm no longer sure what "the level of
>> meaning" means. But how about this: one meme, in two different brains, is
>> identified as such not by its encoding in any mind or brain "language" (ie
>> syntactically), but by its effects on behaviour: these individuals behave in a
>> relevantly similar fashion.
>>
>This sounds like what it is: a regression to the Watsonian
>behavioorism that was discredited during the cognitive revolution in
>the '70's.
That would be true if I were advocating the elimination of subjectivity from
psychology, but I'm not. While some psychology would be unaffected, much
would be rendered useless. But memetics is not psychology. You must realise
that there's a difference between saying that a particular phenomenon or concept
should not be the concern of, or used within, a particular discipline, and
saying that it does not exist or is of no importance. Subjectivity, generally,
is as valid and useful as objectivity. But each has its own appropriate areas
of application, within which the other is more-or-less useless. We can debate
these applications, but your ideology-mongering tends to get in the way
of rational discussion.
-- 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 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 18:44:21 GMT