Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05099 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:45:13 +0100 Message-ID: <002301bff66c$467a8a40$4a02bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174594F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Gender bias for memes Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:12:27 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent, for the time being, I let this rest !! Sorry !!
Convince me !
Regards,
Kenneth
(I am, because we are)
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: Gender bias for memes
> 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 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 25 2000 - 19:46:09 BST