Re: Technology vs. culture

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 23:33:02 BST

  • Next message: Chuck Palson: "Re: Technology vs. culture"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA17162 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 May 2000 23:31:05 +0100
    Message-Id: <200005192229.SAA22570@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:33:02 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Technology vs. culture
    In-reply-to: <3925BE02.4F13FAE8@pacbell.net>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Date sent: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:19:46 -0700
    From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net>
    Subject: Re: Technology vs. culture
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Organization: Saybrook Graduate School
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > Dear Richard,
    >
    > > Exceptions don't prove rules.
    > > They DISprove rules, don't they? I've heard this phrase used before and
    > > never understood what it could mean.
    >
    According to Aristotle (the originator of the maxim), exceptions
    PROBE the rules; in other words, exceptions define the scope and
    range of rules' applicability by virtue of their status as exceptions to
    those rules.
    >
    > It's a good example of meme mutation.
    >
    > "Prove" and "probe" are cognates. An exception probes the rule,
    > it tests it. The meaning of the phrase has altered over time.
    >
    Oh, well, you've got the gist of it anyway; just figured I'd send this
    as an elucidation. It is alsp an indication of drift (from probe to
    prove), just like the Casablanca movie line "Play it, Sam" became
    "Play it again, Sam" in the hoi polloi mind.
    >
    > Nowadays it is used as a defense of a general proposition (the
    > rule). Just because a generalization has exceptions does not
    > disprove it. You expect exceptions to general rules. In fact, if
    > there were no general rule, the exception would not be an
    > exception. By a process the name of which escapes me at the
    > moment, "prove" stands in for "does not disprove." But the normal
    > usage is stronger than just,
    > "Well, that's an exception. So what?" People actually do seem to
    > say that the exception bolsters the rule.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Bill
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 : Fri May 19 2000 - 23:31:40 BST