Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA03310 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:09:54 +0100 Message-Id: <200007221908.PAA26363@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:12:25 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIIEICCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007221722.NAA28278@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 05:06:26 +1000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Joe E. Dees
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 July 2000 3:26
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Gender Bias For Memes
> >
> >
> >
> [snip]
> > Considering Chris' circumnambulent loquacity, one might wonder if
> > (under Chris' own categorizations) Chris is short for Christine.
> > >
>
> :-)
>
> Full name is Christopher John Lofting so 'you fail' Joe :-) (or is that
> Joesephine?) Perhaps if you took the time to get out more you would see the
> move away from rigid gender-typing and so open yourself up more; come down
> from the safety of your ivory tower and at least take-off your shoes and
> socks and feel the grass under your feet -- or perhaps that is too 'female'
> for you? :-)
>
> best,
>
Then you are an exception to your own rule. Exceptions do not
prove the rule, they probe its scope and range (Aristotle) by means
of their status as exceptions. The reductionistic substitution of the
simple for the actual has its memetic attraction; Occam's razor is
as often violated by not accounting for all the data
(oversimplification) as by adding unnecessary elements
(overcomplication). Being and becoming, rest and motion,
presence and absence, sameness-otherness, objects-relations,
etc., many things fall into dualistic categorizations, but not all of
them (the sign-signifier-signified structure is but one example of an
irreduceable triad). Even object and relation are not equally
apportioned, since one precedes by addition, and the other by
Pascallian progression. One object - no relation. Two objects, one
relation. Three objects, three relations (1+2). Four objects, six
relations (1=2=3). And so on, as Vonnegut says. Existence is
much too complex to be squeezed into such a formulation, but
those who try tend to fundamentalistically appeal to a "central fact"
or relation, upon which EVERYTHING ELSE is (because it "must
be") based. From my paper A SHORT PHILOSOPHY OF
HISTORY:
.....advancing cultures are accompanied by successively more complex
belief systems, this last to accommodate successively more inclusive and
detailed perceptions. However, the belief system ultimately fails,
because of both its absolutist dogmatism and the inherent inability of
animistic-mystical belief systems to keep pace with demythologizing
explanations proferred by technical advances. According to Stephen
Pepper, animistic world hypotheses fail due to inadequate precision
(common-sense fails). They tend to anthropomorphize magical presence
into authoritarian spirit, which is crystallized into infallible, but, alas, all-
too-fallible, authority. This authority breaks down under successively
more central, supportable and precise criticism. Also, mystical world
hypotheses fail due to a lack of scope. Their view originates with the
acceptance of a “central fact”. The entire universe is interpreted,
whether it fits or not, as absorbed within this “fact”. Where this
absorption is implausible, the offending fact is denounced as unreal.
The adherents of such “facts” are emotional and reductionistic. They
believe themselves to be the vessels through which the “true fact” must
be promulgated according to a dogma of certainty.
Both “certainty” and “infallibility” are illusions produced by
inadequate world-views. What opposes them is useful truth.
The pragmatists argue that the a priori of truth is utility and the
existentialists argue that the a priori of utility is truth. The precedence
chosen depends upon the referential frame of the chooser, and we tend
to view truth and utility as co-primordial, symbiotic and mutually
grounding. However, when useful truth unmasks by counterexample of
the world hypotheses’ conclusions the fallibility and uncertainty of their
premises, these premises inevitably crumble.
BTW, Splendor in the Grass is not only a fine movie, but a phrase
in a fine poem.
> 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 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 20:10:46 BST