Re: I know one when I see one

From: Philip Jonkers (ephilution@attbi.com)
Date: Tue 29 Oct 2002 - 21:32:56 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    Phil:
    > >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.

    Grant:
    > 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.

    I'm afraid it may be a little more complicated than that. If somebody makes a gross insult towards your wife in front of you and your wife and you were in your twenties you could easily lose control too, don't you? Now suppose you know before-hand that you are dealing with a pretty inflamable character and you are about to call his mother something really twisted then aren't you the instigator? Under those circumstances, it's the decision of the latter trouble-seeker person that the inflamable and emotional character loses its temper. Losing one's temper is by far not always irrational (in the sense of being unexplainable in rational terms)

    Phil

    =============================================================== 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 : Tue 29 Oct 2002 - 22:04:04 GMT