RE: Cons and Facades

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 11:54:06 BST

  • Next message: Lawrence H. de Bivort: "RE: Cons and Facades"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA03247 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:55:57 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458C2@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
    Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:54:06 +0100
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Information and truth are not the same thing. You specifically said the
    truth, which surely means more than simple information like passwords- it
    implies value for one thing. A password is not a truth claim, 'the world is
    flat' is a truth claim.

    Truth claims surely only have value if they can be communicated and thus
    tested in some way or other (not necessarily experimentally, but also
    philosophically, or as a test of faith perhaps).

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Lawrence H. de Bivort
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:37 pm
    > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
    >
    > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
    >
    > >When is it inappropriate to communicate the truth? In what circumstances?
    >
    > When there is the concern that it will enable someone to do something
    > irresponsible. Simple examples: we don't give out our passwords, to
    > anyone. Less simple: our credit card information, which we give out to
    > some people. Even less simple: our views on controversial subjects when we
    > are in social settings where it is 'inappropriate' (Learned this one the
    > hard way <grin>.) Trade secrets, classified information (e.g. re.
    > materials that can be used for terrorist purposes), organization-sensitive
    > materials, personnel files, etc, are other examples of kinds of
    > information that are given restricted dissemination, rightly, I think, for
    > the most-part.
    >
    > We can decide against communicating information for several reasons:
    > 1. Sometimes we don't communiacte things because we judge the
    > setting into which we might do so inappropriate
    >
    > 2. Sometimes we simply view the information as priveleged, whether for
    > personal or professional or commercial reasons. (The reason that Aaron
    > noted a few days ago.)
    >
    > 3. Sometimes we refuse the communication because the requestor is impolite
    >
    > 4. Sometimes we anticipate or fear the information's possible misuse.
    > For me, 'memetic engineering' falls into this last category. (I know not
    > everyone shares this view.)
    >
    > 5. Sometimes information is not adequately formulated; it is still too
    > 'raw.' 'Memetic engineering' may fall into this category as well, though
    > in my view if people clearly state that they view a communication as 'raw'
    > it can be helpful nonetheless to communicate it.
    >
    > - Lawrence
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 11:56:41 BST