Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA13275 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:22:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745965@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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:20:05 +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
Kenneth,
Having waded through the last set of insults thrown by both Joe and Chris, I
take back my last comment. It isn't fun anymore, more like what might
happen at a Mensa kindergarten, (only less mature).
I agree with you, perhaps we should just let them get on with it between
themselves while the rest of us continue to try and exchange ideas in a more
cordial manner. Perhaps then the list will look less like an unusually
highbrow edition of the Jerry Springer show!
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kenneth Van Oost
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:12 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Gender bias for memes
>
> 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 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 : Fri Jul 28 2000 - 14:23:24 BST