Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA29790 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:17:12 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:32:20 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEDNCHAA.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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174590B@inchna.stir.ac.uk> 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: Monday, 10 July 2000 10:42
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology
>
>
> I really don't see what your big epiphany is that you feel we all need to
> accept, Chris.
>
I dont know what you are on about, I wrote a simple note suggesting to try
something out -end of story. The 'tone' in your note suggests you still have
not 'got it' and that is frustrating you. :-) IOW you went 'past' the
intent, you put more into my email than what was there. tsk tsk :-)
> Humans process information in particular ways that tend to us perceving
> meaning in particular ways- so what? Does that negate the notion of
> meaning? Are astrology and astronomy the same except that they make us
> 'feel' different things?
>
See, you missed the point, they make us feel SAME things which we disguise
through using different *words*. There is an emphasis here in that
understanding how we generate meanings allows us to determine quality data
from illusions etc (especially in the taking of these metaphors literally)
This includes being able to determine the source of basic concepts such as
mathematics and in doing so remove the mystique :-)
Perhaps you dont want that? It is a bit threatening I agree, it can de-value
the energy that in the past has been put in to generate meaning in that the
emphasis on disciplines, on specialisations, is shown to be a degree of
illusion/delusion such that getting a grip on the principles does not
require years and years of learning the language since all of the languages
point to the SAME patterns of emotion that we feel as meaningful. Learn the
structure of the patterns and things change re gathering and processing
information of any sort at any scale.
In a sense this can de-value the disciplines in that the institution that is
built around the discipline, the elitism, 'secret' handshakes and the
general belief that the discipline is the 'be all and end all', is
qualitatively reduced; we get rid of the crap and keep the good stuff :-)
There is structure 'in here' and it is reasonably 'rigid' at the general
level so rather than stuff around with heuristics there is a context you can
work with derived from understanding HOW our species categorises data. If
you wish to continue limiting youself to feeling your way, if you prefer to
believe that there is no structure and we must specialise every time --
fine. :-)
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
>
===============================================================
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 : Mon Jul 10 2000 - 21:17:56 BST