Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA24309 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:56:16 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:51:10 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Tests show a human side to chimps Message-ID: <20001109195110.C394@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AF2@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AF2@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:19:52PM -0000 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 02:19:52PM -0000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> >On 11/09/00 07:55, Robin Faichney said this-
>
> > >> Perhaps it is philosophy.
> > >
> > >Does that comment really mean anything, Wade? :-)
> >
> >Only that we're still working on meaning....
>
> >- Wade
>
> Isn't all human thought inherently a quest for meaning?
A philosopher would ask: what does "inherently" mean there?
Now, assuming we don't instantly dissolve into giggles, or just
lose the plot without even the excuse of finging it funny, that's
a very useful question. To get anywhere, you have take one step
at a time, and I think that's the best first step we could take
in this case.
It is not obvious, on the face of it, that all thought is a quest for
meaning. For instance, I might think "What will I have for tea tonight?"
That thought seems to be concerned with feeding myself. So, for what
sense of "inherently" is it true that thinking "What will I have for
tea tonight?" is inherently a quest for meaning?
I'd suggest there's no such sense. "All human thought is inherently
a quest for meaning" is a coded way of saying "questing for meaning
is the most important thing we do". But it's an illegitimate code,
because it disguises a value judgement ("...most important...") as a
factual statement ("...is inherently...").
I suspect there's a potential generalisation here, whereby most or all
such reductionist claims conceal evaluative assumptions, but then I'm
afraid of being hoist by my own petard...
> We want to know answers to questions, and most of all we want to know why.
I don't. "Why", out on its own like that, doesn't mean anything to me.
And I suspect I'm not alone.
(Who'd have thought you're the rationalist and I'm the religionist?!)
> Is it that desire that makes us open to memes or whatever the hell else in
> going on in culture?
What makes us open to memes, generally, is the fact that we're an
intelligent, social species. What makes us SO open to SUCH ridiculous
memes is the fact that we don't know either what's good for us, or what
will make us happy. No big mystery.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 19:59:05 GMT