Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA00921 (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 15:15:55 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174594F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Gender bias for memes Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:13:35 +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
I know, I know, I said I'd let this one lie. But just as I decided to do
that, it became interesting again!
I don't agree with this division of Joe and Chris' positions at all. I
don't see gendered differences in their manner of debating, only differences
in their ability to make arguments.
Chris has two basic responses to any criticism. 1) to repeat, in just as
much detail, previous posts; 2) to say 'look at my website'. In other
words, Chris' responses are self-referential, and persistently so. Chris'
theory is self-sustaining, and this is one of the things that bothers me
about it. Any theory is only a model of how things are, a simplification,
so claims of absolute correctness should always be under suspicion.
Or, am I in a minority to regard with suspicion the response to a criticism
with 'Have a look at what I've written..'?
Take for example one of Chris' asumptions, that there is a false distinction
between 'in here' and 'out there', with everything we think we know and
understand about 'out there' actually coming from 'in here'. OK- where is
'in here'? 'In here' is the human brain, which actually exists 'out there',
as physical matter in the universe, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to
have an 'in here', which is therefore a product of 'out there'. So, where
does the fundamentality lie in such a distinction- or rather where's the
evidence to justify making such a distinction? (The denial of 'out there' as
being entirely constructed by 'in here' sounds like someone trying to come
to terms with having spent time as a mercenary, and pretending that it
didn't 'really' happen.)
I see no problem with regarding the I-Ching or any other number of ancient
(or modern) numerological or other kinds of systems reflecting elements of
brain structure, and thus offering a reason why people find meaning in them.
Where I see a problem is in trying to claim that because of this, such
systems are therefore genuinely meaningful, or as meaningful as systems
which make accurate associations between cause and effect, and make accurate
predictions about external phenomena.
A good example would be Tarot cards. Now, I've no idea if Tarot cards fit
Chris' system or not, no doubt he'd say they do. The actual use of tarot
cards, however, is a mixture of cold-reading, and sleight of hand. In other
words, meaning for people doesn't come from some innate structure in their
brain that is reflected by the cards, but by the card readers' ability to
fix the cards to come out in a pattern that fits the information they have
extracted from the subject in other ways. Indeed, for the particularly
unscrupulous card reader, and the particularly gullible subject, the reader
doesn't even have to stack the deck, as they can make up the meaning of the
cards as they see fit- the best one being that the 'death' card doesn't
necessarily mean death. The subject doesn't care what's going on as long as
the reader gives them the illusion of control over their future, which is
what people want. (Another example would be people who walk on hot coals
with the aim of beating terminal diseases- it's the illusion of control
again, this time fostered by the incorrect notion that walking on hot coals
shouldn't be possible, so if you can do that you can take control of things
like cancer).
Let the debate continue though, it is fun.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kenneth Van Oost
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 4:36 pm
> To: memetics
> Subject: Gender bias for memes
>
> Come on boys, let 's stick together,
>
> Joe
> Chris
>
> male (order) female
> (change)
> consensus, opportunistic
>
> (any perceived weakness in the other (likes the feedback)
> party is jumped-upon, like the claim
> Joe makes that Chris violates his own
> propounded rules)
>
> action, language,
>
> ( 'attacks ' with words_reacts without (is likely to explain
> things,
> thought of consequence ) is more context aware,
> ' knows '
> his stuff )
>
> sameness,
>
> " trying to make logical sense out of your
> (Chris) screeds... " is IMHO (Kenneth) a
> statement likely close to what is by the
> ' general ' understood for logic. The defi-
> nition of the term which Joe apllies is
> violated by Chris, so joe strikes back.
>
> Joe, you have to admit, ' accusing ' Chris that his politeness dropped
> like a
> rock and challenging his concepten in that way (without any attempt to
> dis-
> cuss the matter) is IMHO_ even fundamentalistic. And expecting as much,
> betrays a prejudice.
>
> But anyone on this list who has gotten the idea re left/right; sameness/
> diffe-
> rence must be excited_you and Chris are proovin ' ' live ' that there is
> a gen-
> der bias for memes.
> Look at your posts, they stand full of male/ female formulas, responses,
> ex-
> pressions...
>
> We better argue what is the usefull truth of such arguments...in the
> context
> of the subject please...
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> (I am, because we are) disappointed
>
===============================================================
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 - 15:16:46 BST