Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA13835 (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 19:41:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001001bff8c7$44fee8c0$2c03bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745965@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Gender bias for memes Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:03:43 +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,
Agreed !!
Lets go back to ' Memes and Sexuality '.
I will post tomorrow the info about those X1- witnesses.
See post Monday 24 july 2000.
Untill then !!
Many regards,
Kenneth
(I am, because we are)
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: Gender bias for memes
> 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 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 - 19:42:22 BST