Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA18536 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:42 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:49:01 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIENOCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458D7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 June 2000 10:04
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>
>
> I see what you're saying.
>
> What I'm addressing here is two things: first, what is it about certain
> information that it is regarded as 'the truth' by individuals-
> which you've
> got a most reasonable answer for; but second what makes some truths spread
> beyond individuals. Why, for example, does the truth of natural selection
> spread, but not the 'truth' of my computer password? (or rather why do I
> freely discuss the former but carefully protect the latter?).
>
particular (your password) vs general (principles of natural selection --
RULES and REGULATIONS) Perhaps it is to the benefit of all that we share the
discovery of rules and regulations but it is no benefit to know your
password at the general level (other than stealing info or dumping files
onto your system but even that is local).
Gets back to layers:
personal
cultural
universal
> This question may relate to an earlier discussion the list about what a
> 'belief' is. I was flicking through Dennett yesterday, and saw where that
> dispute emerged, in that belief is used by Dennett (and others)
> to refer to
> all sorts of behaviours (Wade used the example of catching a
> ball- or rather
> he demonstrated how 'beliefs' are needed to catch the ball). I think
> perhaps the same thing is going on here with the concept of
> truth. Perhaps
> it's my humanities/social science environment affecting my
> position on these
> things.
>
sounds like levels to me, the SAME method/principles apply to each level and
so personal beliefs, cultural beliefs, univeral beliefs.
> It's not that I'm against reductive or determinist approaches, but I am
> against taking the meaning out of words. After all, I would argue that
> facts and truths are not the same thing, so there is no way I would accept
> that my computer password is the truth, except by taking all the
> meaning of
> the term 'truth' away.
In the context of facts/truth I think that in general the 'point' is the
same but perhaps in particular there are differences in that the use of
truth includes a qualitative bias stronger than the use of fact; fact is
more 'matter-of-fact' whereas truth links to all sorts of qualitative
harmonics, the word has more baggage perhaps?
>
> I apologise if this is being too personal,
No need for the apology.
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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 : Wed Jun 21 2000 - 14:35:27 BST