RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 07 2000 - 11:48:20 BST

  • Next message: Chris Lofting: "RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA22763 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:50:29 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745904@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 - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
    Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:48:20 +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
    

    Yes, but the point was in this view of language, meaning only exists in
    negation, there's dichotomy there.

    Didn't you mention Heidegger in one of your posts? Isn't his notion of
    humans as "beings unto death" an absolute? Where's the dichotomy in this
    notion?

    Just to be flippant, this left brain/right brain stuff reminds me of that
    old joke that goes 'Since the left side of the brain controls the right side
    of the body, then only people who are left handed are in their right mind!'
    :-) (I unfortunately am right handed).

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Chris Lofting
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2000 8:47 pm
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > > Of Vincent Campbell
    > > Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2000 7:39
    > > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - Welcome to My Nightmare Part 2.Bb
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks for this.
    > >
    > > You've sprung me on Wittgenstein here, as this is a general sense
    > > of what I
    > > thought one of Wittgenstein's views was, and not something I can cite
    > page
    > > refs for. The bit I'm thinking of is the notion that a 'cat' is
    > > not a 'cat'
    > > because the word contains some essence of the object it is describing,
    > but
    > > only because 'cat' means 'not a dog', 'not a cow' etc. etc.
    >
    > This is the viewpoint from the ~A where we can identify something by what
    > it
    > isnt; we use context to shine light on the text. Negation is just another
    > 'harmonic' as far as the world of ~A is concerned. Science uses this a
    > lot,
    > especially in QM etc .. problem is that it is a bit like Plato's cave and
    > so
    > we have to wrestle with shadows :-)
    >
    > 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 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 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 11:51:12 BST