Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA23068 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:40:50 +0100 Message-Id: <200010030038.UAA28052@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:42:46 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: the conscious universe In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEHJCJAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <20001001201738.A985@reborntechnology.co.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: the conscious universe
Date sent: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:35:09 +1000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Robin Faichney
> > Sent: Monday, 2 October 2000 5:18
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: the conscious universe
> >
> >
> <clip>
> > > is not just a logical fallacy, but one
> > > committed in bad faith, because you know (or should know, as you
> > > have been previously told) better.
> >
> > I see. Those who have not been exposed to your wisdom can be excused,
> > but those who have, and continue to expound views at variance with your
> > own, are acting in bad faith.
> >
> > Your ego is getting out of hand, Joe. You should consider seeking
> > specialist help.
> >
>
> I agree, but then perhaps so should you! :-) Neither of you are talking
> anything other than just interpretations and in us humans all of the
> possible interpretations stem from the initial 'hidden' distinctions of
> object/relationships.
>
> Joe is talking from an internal linkage perspective, object bias, sometimes
> too rigid (and he still has not replied to my comments re the article he
> wrote, on-line he tries to be 'robust' and offline he runs, tsk tsk Joe!)
>
You did not write anything worth a reply. You claimed that
everything in my article had to do with dyads, but there were tools,
language and text (one triad), the three passivities of being, having
and knowing (a second), and the three activities of doing, making
and saying (a third). Obviously, you read with preconceptual
blinders. Not only are you the most shining and sterling example
of the very same egomanaicality you purport to deplore. You can
not even get out of your sad and simplistic pseudointellectual rut
that EVERYTHING in the WHOLE WORLD is dyadic, even when
presented with innumerable irreduceable triads, pentads, etc. I do
not deny the existence of dyadic relations, but simply point out
that they do not comprise all systemic interrelations; you feel
compelled to deny all BUT dyadic relations, even in the face of
irrefuteable examples. You already took this sad tale to the JCS
list and had it destriyed there while I silently watched; having failed
in that venue, are you now priming for a second run at this one?
>
> Joe's emphasis on 'empirical facts' denies humanity. He shows a preference
> for objects over people and so a dislike for illusions, not realising that
> the whole of social structure is based on illusions -- they are 'fun'. Joe
> wants it all 'perfectly clear' and is in that sense doomed in his struggle
> for determining meaning since meaning includes lies and so 'fuzzyness';
> random events can generate generations of 'meaning'!
>
You need to work (a lot) on the armchair psychologizing; you are
extremely poor at it. In fact, I make distinctions between the world
of meaning and the world of being, and point out that semiotics is
the structural view of the meaning-relation, whereas memetics is
the functional view. Memetic analysis will as a result be fuzzier, as
is Piaget's genetic epistemology, because it is looking at the
functioning of a phenomenon in motion, while semiotics, like
phenomenology, can give one a clear structural static snapshot,
but cannot represent evolutionary development. They are thus
complementary disciplines; each offering what the other cannot to
the total picture (which itself must remain incomplete), kinda like
particle and wave measurements in physics. These two disciplines
will never achieve the status of the hard sciences; they may be
viewed as either complementary soft, or social, science
perspectives, embodying similar explanatory principles to
those found in much theory present in political science and
economics, or as complementary philosophical stances.
Philosophical description is the art of carving reality at its natural
joints, but depending upon where one stands in relation to that
reality, different sets of natural joints will emerge to view.
===============================================================
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 Oct 03 2000 - 01:42:08 BST