Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 07:36:53 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA11680 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 5 Mar 2000 07:34:51 GMT
    Message-Id: <200003050733.CAA29552@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:36:53 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
    In-reply-to: <00030505541602.00357@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: new line: what's the point?
    Date sent: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:51:19 +0000
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >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.
    > >>
    > >Yeah, you lionize Dennett when his position agrees with your own
    > >preconceptions, and claim he must be wrong where you disagree.
    >
    > Address the issue, please: do you still claim, contra Dennett, who wrote the
    > definitive modern work on the topic, that intentionality necessarily implies
    > subjectivity?
    >
    Yep, if that is indeed what he claimed (you've been wrong about
    him before here). Intender-intending-intended is another one of
    those tripartate and interdependent structures comprised of source,
    path and goal, distinguishable yet inseparable components of a
    single system (for reference, I know you won't check
    PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH: THE EMBODIED MIND AND ITS
    CHALLENGE TO WESTERN THOUGHT by George Lakoff and
    Mark Johnson, Basic Books 1999, because you never check
    anything, but it's in there) . Intention is, like signification (signifier-
    signifying-signified), dependent upon subjectivity for the source
    from which it flows as much as it depends upon the existence of a
    world for the goal to which it goes, and upon perception,
    conception and action to serve as paths from source to goal. Just
    as meaning is imposed upon the world by the subject, so is
    intention directed towards differentiable particulars within the world
    (or towards representations of these stored in memory and
    abstracted into knowledge) by the subject.

    > --
    > 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 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 07:34:56 GMT