Re: I know one when I see one

From: Grant Callaghan (grantc4@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu 24 Oct 2002 - 15:03:11 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    >
    >Grant:
    > > It is only when information is conveyed by actions that the medium is
    >the
    > > message. If one man punches another in the nose, the action conveys a
    > > mesage. But what was the message? Without words to modify the action,
    >the
    > > man being punched might have no idea why he was hit. The man who bangs
    >the
    > > wall with his fist in a fit of anger is also sending a message, but to
    >whom
    > > and why? Can we say the fist banging into the wall is the message? Or
    >is
    > > it just a way of transmitting what was going on in the mind of the man
    >who
    > > did the banging? Things we craft with our hands or mouths are
    >artifacts.
    > > What they communicate is something going on in the mind of the
    >craftsman.
    >
    >The guy who punches the other guy induces a tactile sensation startoing
    >in the nose of the latter guy. Consequently, the neural sensation quickly
    >travels all the way up to the central nervous system where the neural
    >message
    >is predominantly processed in the pain centers of the brain of the
    >punch-recipient.
    >Hopefully some memory banks and higher cognitive centers are also
    >stimulated
    >so that measures may be taken to avoid future repetition of the event.
    >
    >The guy who tries to knock a wall down seems a bit foolish to me for three
    >reasons.
    >1. The chance of actually taking a wall out is mimimal usually unless the
    >wall is made
    >of prefab or the pucher's last name is Tyson. So why bother right?...
    >2. According to Newton's principle of action = reaction:
    >The wall hits the fist as much as the fist hits the wall. Consequently, the
    >impact of the
    >punch is equally divided over the fist as well as the wall possibly
    >damaging
    >both.
    >3. Regarding message transmission: since the wall obviously is incapable of
    >perception
    >(unless the wall was recently visited by the CIA/FBI) the only recipient of
    >the message
    >is the launcher of the punch himself (or `herself' for sake of
    >emancipation). And it doens't
    >require much imagination to know that the message isn't exactly one of
    >bliss.
    >
    >Phil
    >
    And yet, we see people doing stupid, destructive things like this to express their anger all the time. It has even become a cliche used in movies and plays. Definitely one of the things that mark it as a meme. When asked, "Why did you punch him in the nose?" you're likely to get as an answer, "He pissed me off!" as if it was the fault of the person who got punched that the puncher lost his temper. What a person does with his anger is a decision of the angry person, not the person he takes it out on. But irrationality is the kind of thing strong emotions cause in us.

    Grant

    _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    =============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Thu 24 Oct 2002 - 15:09:38 GMT