Re: electric meme bombs

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 21:01:45 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    >
    >
    >
    > > >
    > > > On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 01:11 , joedees@bellsouth.net
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > That there is such a thing as a second tree ( for under your
    > > > > rubric, every tree has to have its own, nonrelational name).
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm.
    > > >
    > > > I don't see that I'm saying that, at all.
    > > >
    > > > I demand not only a second tree, and then a third one, but, never
    > > > a first one twice.
    > > >
    > > > Names?
    > > >
    > > > When did they enter into it?
    > > >
    > > > - Wade
    > > >
    > > When we see three pine trees in a row, according to you, they all
    > > have to have individual names (just as all behaviours are
    > > individual, just so must all objects be). This makes the (sub)
    > > category 'pine' useless, just as it makes the category 'tree'. For
    > > your scheme to work. But it doesn't.
    >
    > Joe if I may,
    >
    > Wade's scheme works in the way that each tree, despite the fact they
    > are all trees, named as pines, all grow as different individuals. IMO,
    > he is right, each person is not genetical unique, but also memetical.
    > The idea of a memetic isomorphism can take root here...
    >
    > The same kind of scheme is applied in the search for wales.
    > Scientists take pictures of individuals to recognize them within
    > the species they are investigatin ' !
    >
    My problem is not with the individual existence of each tree, but with the impossibility of talking about trees in general. For every individual tree would have to have an individual name if the type/token distinction, under which each tree is a token of the type 'tree', is denied. Wade was actually doing this concerning actions, but you cannot pick and choose where the type/token structure of language applies. And when one eliminates that distinction, one eliminates the grounds of shared meaning from which meaningful communication and discourse may emerge.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Kenneth
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2.1.5 : Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 21:06:05 GMT