From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 21:08:47 GMT
> From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >Joe:
> > > >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.
> >
> >Joe:
> >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.
I understand what you're trying to do here, Scott, and I applaud your
effort. But you've misread the situation. I feel no animosity toward Joe
whatsoever. There's no tit-for-tat game going on here. He just keeps
attacking me, and in the course of defending myself, I've tried to explain
why this pattern keeps repeating. When I label him with a personality
disorder, it's not to hurt his feelings but simply to explain to the rest of
the list what's going on here. This is a standard condition. There are
millions of people diagnosable with a PD in the US. While Joe is the most
over-the-top case I've ever encountered, in "real life" or online, there's
nothing particularly unusual about this. PD's rarely improve, and there's
no cure. Joe will continue insulting me-- like claiming I'm incapable of
rational thought or, above, where he says I label everything I oppose as
"reductionistic," a ridiculous accusation that he can't possibly back up
with any examples-- and he will continue offering hallucination as fact, as
in the above claim that I responded to his recent paper with the "initial
vitriol." He will also continue promoting himself as some kind of genius
whom we should all unconditionally admire.
Ted
===============================================================
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 - 21:14:38 GMT