Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA02768 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:22:07 +0100 Message-Id: <200010102219.SAA23978@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:24:09 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: the conscious universe: subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAELBCJAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <008401c03206$1b23d6a0$9863b8d0@default> 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: subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs
Date sent: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:54:15 +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 Lawrence de Bivort
> > Sent: Tuesday, 10 October 2000 1:32
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: the conscious universe: subjectivity/objectivity of beliefs
> >
> >
> > From: Joe E. Dees <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > Lawrence:
> > > > The neural basis of ideas, I would suggest, is no more significant for
> > memes
> > > > than it is for non-memetic ideas, and so I find the neural elements of
> > memes
> > > > not particularly or intrinsically interesting when it comes
> > to studying
> > > > memes and their workings.
> >
> > Joe:
> > > The difference is one of perspective - first-person vs. third-person -
> > > upon the same phenomenon. My ideas are objective to me, as
> > > they are objects of my mental attention/intention. That which is
> > > called subjective is objective to the subject. There is no absolute
> > > objectivity; only intersubjective agreement.
> >
> > Yes, agreed. In my classes, I use the term "subjective reality"
> > to refer to
> > the internal processes of perceiving, pattern-recognition, thinking and
> > decision-making. This is as 'real' to the individual as anything,
> > yet is so
> > intensely idiosyncratic to that individual that it appears 'subjective' to
> > observers of that individual. One of my interests is how, then,
> > the observer
> > can himself perceive and understand what is going on in another person's
> > "subjective reality." We see each other through the lenses of our own
> > "subjective realities."
>
> Not totally. there is underneath the species filter and that is
> objects/relationships and so the mechanism to eventually understand each
> other -- discover the metaphors used to particularise the
> object/relationships patterns and you get communication that all members of
> the species should be able to deal with regardless of local nuances.
>
We understand each other, to a degree, on this list, but absolutely
understanding each other, or even ourselves, is an abstract ideal
which can never be concretely realized; Peter cannot be Paul, and
they are both ever-changing.
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 Oct 10 2000 - 23:23:23 BST