Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA07286 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 7 May 2000 20:28:25 +0100 Message-ID: <39157E2C.E0EB3A97@mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 15:31:08 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Researchers Identify Brain's Moral + "eIe opener" References: <200005062019.GAA19703@fep7.mail.ozemail.net> <3914A25C.1B6E9A95@mediaone.net> <39159F64.1C5693E8@netvision.net.il> 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
I would like to comment further on some of the problems with eIe. New words are generally developed not by developing completely different words, but through metaphorical use of old words. That is why 99% of all words have more than one meaning. Check out the meanings and you will find a kind of archaeology of meaning that pertains to each era when the new word was invented. The reason for this is
that it is simply more efficient to do it that way because you can take advantage of the already existing associations of that word and mark it off with the new meaning by context; it saves a lot of time trying to spread the usage of the word. The only new truly new words that are developed are to my knowledge combinations of two words. Break the fast became breakfast, for example.
So trying to develop an entirely new word, especially one that can hardly be pronounced like eIe, is bound to fail. The only people that might try to do that occasionally are teenagers, and they do it as an ingroup thing and it doesn't last very long. I think that pig latin is kind of like this.
I should add that the answers to most of the questions people within memetics ask can be found in several different fields already - such as linguistics (especially psycholinguistics), journalism (try Columbia Journalism Review for lots of interesting and current stuff), literary criticism (some of Kenneth Burke is interesting for this), and etymology. What these fields lack is the desire on the
part of people in memetics to make strong value judgements about the nature of memes - that they are harmful "viruses". Characterizing memes in this way appears to me to be value judgements disguised with a veneer of science; I have never, for example, seen anyone define why these viruses are bad. Whatever memology is (I have a hard to figuring out exactly what it is despite extensive reading), the
value judgements are perhaps better left aside. I have never seen any science succeed for long on the basis of obvious value judgements.
daniella wrote:
> i would like to react to a mixture of posts, if i may:
>
> the eIe opener, eIe found amusing.
> to pun haters it would be a red rag....
> also can only be used in writing.
> what i hoped to apply it too , were chris's (from diana e-mail)
> statements.
> Those i found extremely interesting, though i could not see how they
> could possibly be deduced from the article on brain research. no other
> sources were given...
> reread the two posts concerned, and did not find a single " I" to
> maybe convert into an eIe...
> therefore am left with two questions: on what did chris base his
> conclusions?
> what additional word could we use in protection from subjective
> statements, put in objective terms?
> struck me, that this chris message, may be an experiment at planting
> memes, based on the book discussed earlier in the week....
> detailed questions were given in chuck's post.
>
> daniella
> Chuck Palson wrote:
>
> > See questions in reply text:
> >
> > Diana Diamond wrote:
> >
> > > you can trace the right/wrong distinctions back to the Reptilian brain and the mapping of territory using waypoints (as in 'mine..not mine..mine) etc this gets abstracted into correct/incorrect, right/wrong etc
> >
> > What is the reference here? I have never heard of this langauge being applied to the brain. By Reptilian, do you simply mean the lymbic system?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The neurological and psychological data
> >
> > What psychological data?
> >
> > > suggests that there is a PRIMARY process in allowing data to 'enter' 'in here' and this is a filtering system based on rigid EITHER/OR distinction making.
> >
> > Rigid? There are no algorythms? There is no step process? What kind of experiments illustrate this? I am asking this because from what I know about the brain, any such either/or criteria would have to be at an extremely low level. If so, why would you think this could be related to memetics since it is at such a low level? Could you give an example, perhaps, of the types of information you are
> > talking about?
> >
> > > Once any data gets passed this it then comes under SECONDARY processing that assumes that since it got past the primary it MUST be meaningful in some way; thus in secondary thinking all is meaningful.
> > >
> > > This secondary processing deals with the analysis of harmonics such that you can bring out or suppress aspects of data allowing for a more 'refined' image of the data to emerge. This processing includes the use of internal feedback processes in the from of memories that are added to enhance meaning.
> > >
> >
> > Again, this does not ring a bell with me. What kinds of data are you referring to?
> >
> > >
> > > If the primary process is at fault, or allows through something 'random' so the secondary process, being as trusting of the primary as it is, cannot tell that there is a 'fault' and will treat the data as all other data it gets.
> > >
> > > The trick is to get past the primary processing, the barrier, and the way to do that is to use a wave approach...
> > >
> > > Thus understanding how the primary process works as well as its 'location' in the brain is useful if you want to (a) bypass it and get you message 'in here' without moral filtering or (b) build it up, make it either very rigid or more discerning when processing data.
> > >
> >
> > "Moral filtering"? Again, I can't imagine that the kind of primary filtering you are talking about would be involved. I need examples.
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 May 07 2000 - 20:28:41 BST