Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA06025 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:37:01 +0100 Message-Id: <200007240035.UAA27193@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:37:15 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Gender Bias For Memes In-reply-to: <000901bff494$6a38aea0$7a06bed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Gender Bias For Memes
Date sent: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:53:58 +0200
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Joe, you wrote,
>
> > 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.
>
> << I don 't want to be the pain...but it all comes down, again to how you
> interpretate 'relation '.
> In ART one object can have relation ,and that is to itself troughout the
> space
> and time where it stands...
>
Nope; that is the real limit of relation (identity). Things are not
RELAYED to themselves, they ARE themselves. The opposite,
ideal (that is, never to be realized) limit of relation is, of course,
nonrelationality.
>
> In 1913 f.e. is was bon ton to let a piece of art speak for itself.
> In the same period is was common that artists placed texts by their work,
> in those writings they try to learn the viewer, the reader of the text how
> to
> look ' rightly ' at their work. In a sense give it a (one) 'relation '.
> Of course those artists see their work as autonomous, as in principle
> without
> any further elucidation, without ' relation ' but in practice that is
> complete different.
> I don 't know if this give any clearity, but...
>
Those multimedia art collages are not entities, but systems, with
internal interrelations between their components.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> (I am, because we are)
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 01:37:53 BST