Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA01490 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745910@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:16:21 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Actually Chris this particular message was a response to the tone of your
post here, reflected again in your response. I haven't 'got it' you say-
that assumes there's something to get, akin to a christian saying to an
atheist that they simply 'haven't seen the light' and so won't be saved.
That is what is frustrating- the assumption of absolute truth/certainty
without substantiation- as well as the assumption that because people don't
agree with you they simply don't understand what you've said. Some of us
have made clear that we don't get all that you're saying, and the emphasis
has been on your method of describing your position, not necessarily your
position itself.
I have no problem with the notion that humans categorise and interpret data
in particular ways, I thought I'd made that clear. I have no problem either
with wanting to get past the habitus (or crap) of disciplines in order to
achieve a better understanding of what's really going on. That's precisely
why I'm part of this list, why I constantly ask questions on the list, and
make comments on topics well out of my field- in order to get some plain
language into the discussions (see for example, the previous discussions on
beliefs and culture, terms used very differently in different disciplines)
so that I might get a grasp on different disciplines
agreements/disagreements with the idea of memetics.
That's not what you've provided, despite the length of your posts. Despite
all your previous posts I cannot see any way in which the statements that
astrology and astronomy make us feel the same, Lamarck and Darwin are the
same, or that mammals came from rocks, could be correct except in a
relativistic sense.
I apologise if this seems deliberately obtuse or obstreperous, that is not
my intention- understanding is my intention.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:32 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Philosophy of Technology
>
>
>
> > -----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 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 : Tue Jul 11 2000 - 12:19:07 BST