From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 03:53:14 GMT
>From: joedees@bellsouth.net
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329
>Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 21:13:16 -0500
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329
> > >Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:39:48 -0500
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> > > > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk, fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > >Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329
> > > > >Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:52:32 -0500
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a massage dated 5/7/2003 2:33:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > > > > > joedees@bellsouth.net pathetically begs for attention:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dace STILL will not comment upon my paper, blah to disparage
> > > > > > it would blah to disparage the blah he made which prompted my
> > > > > > respewing of it, since they remumble each other so much, and
> > > > > > he candide bear to graise it, because eyes is minimal. Those
> > > > > > who blah reduce aboriginal work either criticize or embrace
> > > > > > the work of my face's eternal modular apparatus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Jake] Maybe its time for you to talk to someone other than
> > > > > > Dace, Joe. Love, Jake.
> > > > > >
> > > > >Maybe you're right; Dace is certainly incapable of rational
> > > > >discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Talking *about* him isn't going to yield any better results. Don't
> > > > turn this into a grudge match.
> > > >
> > > > I may have been the first to broach the morphic resonance topic
> > > > with Ted when he first appeared here on this list. I was in a
> > > > playful mood and I thought I remembered him from a Sheldrake forum
> > > > where we had a history of posting on the same threads.
> > > >
> > > > I'm no great fan of reductionism and I'd suppose you would
> > > > probably be less critical of Dace's criticisms of reductionism if
> > > > it weren't for your heated history with him and your dislike of
> > > > Sheldrake's ideas.
> > > >
> > >Dace tends to label everything with which he or his idol disagrees as
> > >reductionist, whether the label applies or not.
> > > >
> > > > BTW Joe aren't you a fan of Piaget, if I recall correctly? Piaget
> > > > had some rather eccentric views of evolution and biology too.
> > > >
> > >Some parts of Piaget is better than other parts; however, the field
> > >of genetic epistemology, which he founded, has the same relation to
> > >phenomenology that memetics has to semiotics; one is a structural
> > >snapshot (phenomenology, semiotics), while the other is a functional
> > >description of a dynamic process (genetic epistemology, memetics).
> > > >
> > > > Besides, if Ted were a true Sheldrake worshipper and evangelizer,
> > > > he would have tried coaxing us to read the master's latest work
> > > > _The Sense of Being Stared At_, recently published if I'm not
> > > > mistaken. As it stands, again, I might be the first (with this
> > > > post) to have mentioned that book on this list, not Dace. Cut him
> > > > some slack.
> > > >
> > >Hokay. It does appear to me, however, that he might not have brought
> > >up that pseudoscientific prestidigitator's latest paranormal
> > >peroration because of the less than ebullient reception which past
> > >works by the wacko have received here. And, remember, I just reposted
> > >a paper of mine that I considered to have anticipated a line of
> > >thought he recently posted; he is the one who responded with the
> > >initial vitriol.
> > >
> > At this point, if either of you offers anything of value to a
> > discussion, it might be quite difficult for the other to acknowledge
> > it or approach each other objectively, removed from the history of
> > heated tit-for-tat. You two are obviously not on the best of terms and
> > may start wearing list members out, except those who thrive on the
> > aggressiveness of pro-wrestling style trash talking.
> >
>And my meta-comparison of the relationship between phenomenology
>and genetic epistemology with the relationshop between semiotics and
>memetics, securely anchoring memetics in an acknowleged pantheon of
>contemporarily accepted psychological and philosophical perspectives,
>is of no value here, the place which desperately hungers for legitimacy
>for its viewpoint? Puh-LEEEZE!
>
I wasn't saying you have nothing to contribute, though your attacks on Dace
aren't quite in the edifying category. Dace could *mis*read the same
conditional point I made, but my emphasis was on whether either of you would
be in a position to recognize a valuable contribution by the other, given
the distorting effect of mutual animosity. This animosity has apparently
distorted your perception to the point that you mistook my comment as an
insult instead of a critical reflecton upon the situation between you two.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
===============================================================
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 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 04:00:28 GMT