Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA09559 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:32:41 GMT Message-Id: <200012080129.UAA01990@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:34:41 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall In-reply-to: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B77@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
Date sent: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:25:58 -0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> I don't quite know what you're going on about here Joe, not being a party to
> the other list, but I like the term 'memebotic'.
>
> Linking to Wade's posted piece about "elevation", it strikes me that there
> are particular rituals that most religious doctrines require, that seem to
> make people more vulnerable to this state of total, uncritical acceptance of
> a particular belief regardless of its abject incorrrectness. Things like
> prayer and meditation, but also things like dance (whirling dervishes,
> native american rain dances etc.), fasting (I believe zen monks, in one
> temple at least, have to undergo a long period without food or water, very
> risky indeed) and, of course, drug taking in shamanic rituals.
>
> I've been re-reading Derek's JEMIT article, and still generally agree with
> his rejection of belief transmission, per se, but perhaps it's an indirect
> result of doctrines that avow practices which in turn may be likely to
> produce religiosity in those that undertake them.
>
> It's such an, unfortunately, widespread feature of belief systems, it must
> come from somewhere- and it's certainly not from any of them being "true".
>
> Vincent
>
What I am up to is designating both Chris Lofting and Everett Allie
as that particular type of passionate meme slave commonly known
as a proselytizing true believer. Neither is discussing memetics so
much as broadcasting his particular memeset, incessantly and
without either deviation or innovation. Both the content and the
tone of both of them is so blindly and numbingly repetitive that they
seem cut-and-pasted; read one post of either, and you have read
them all. It is all noise, and no signal, comprised entirely of the
ceaseless repetition of a small number of easily falsifiable
assertions, coupled with the inability to see when these assertions
have been conclusively refuted by either logic or counterexample,
coupled with the true believer's commitment to flood lists with their
received gospel truth dogmadoctrine ad nauseum et infinitum, as if
sheer verbosity and volume could ever substitute for soundness
and validity. Both appear impervious to not only logic, reason and
evidence, but even to any imaginative or evolutionary two-way
discourse whatsoever. I think that it would be fruitful for memetic
study for these two to debate each other while we, and the virus
list, view the results, not to ascertain which one is right (since
neither is), but to see how each reacts to being faced with a mirror-
image form of himself hawking mutually exclusive content. This
seems to me to be the only fruitful thing that either is capable of
contributing. I am taking this tack rather than addressing either
one of them directly because there is nothing for me to learn from
the purported 'substance' of either of them (and I strongly suspect
that this is true of everyone on both lists), and neither of them
appear capable of learning anything from anyone else;
communication with either of them is therefore a waste of time, as
neither of them appears to have anything of value to transmit, and
neither seems capable of either reception or reasoned discourse,
where one either answer another's points reasonably or admit what
everyone else can see with crystalline clarity - that one cannot. I
am tired of seeing the 30k post limit of the linguistic equivalent of
scrambled eggs hurled as if it actually answered or explained
something, so that one respond without cutting it and being
accused of biased excision or having one's response bounce.
Neither seems to realize that asserting that a bowl of word salad is
an answer does not make it one. I am planning to send each of
them the other's addy, so that if they do not wish to be a public
object lesson of the interminable force meeting the
uncomprehending object, they can at least amuse themselves, and
each other, in private, and leave these two lists to more serious
and productive genuine discourse, where all parties open their
metaphoric ears (literal eyes) as well as their metaphoric mouths
(literal fingers), rather than having their mouths jacked so wide
open that their lips are stretched over their ears.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Joe E. Dees
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2000 1:39 am
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> >
> > Date sent: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 17:32:19 +0000
> > From: "Everett E. ALLie" <specieup@safari.net>
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> >
> > > Hello, Joe, long time since I've heard from you. I hope you're
> > well. As to Hall:
> > > No, he is a very open friendly fellow, however, he's very insistent
> > about what
> > > existence really is. So far, no one has been able to show him is
> > wrong.
> > >
> > No one can show a blind man what color is, either, and he is
> > inclined to dismiss it as a delusion held by mistaken interlocuters,
> > much as you dismiss GR and QM. At the same time, one can
> > never convince fanatics whose self-concept, self-esteem and sense
> > of self-worth have been irretrieveably bound up with the validity of a
> > truth-claim concerning some obnoxious flatulence or other. You
> > have reduced your now one-dimensional self to the status of the
> > epistemic Jehovah's Witness of Hallianism, and that fact does not
> > render it any more correct than does a JWs' belief validate their
> > particular monomyth. There is no proof for Hallianism, and
> > overwhelmingly preponderant experimental evidence, fulfilled
> > predictions, and technological utility for the science it futilely
> > attempts to supplant. You remind me of a fellow on the memetics
> > list named Chris Lofting, whose hebephrenic avalanche of word
> > salad and complete ignorance (in both senses of the word) of
> > conclusively refuting counterexamples, combined with a
> > fascistically relentless 'true believer' cheerfulness, sustains him in
> > the quixotic crusade that all mind is composed of dichotomies and
> > recursions; when presented with irreduceable trichotomies, such
> > as the sign-signifier-signified structure of signification, the focus-
> > field-fringe structure of conception/perception, or the amplitude-
> > frequency-waveform structure of distally originating stimuli (in vision
> > this translates to brightness-color-shape; in audition to loudness-
> > pitch-timbre), he either refuses to acknowledge such flies in his
> > ointment or ludicrously attempts to fit the square pegs of 'factual
> > reality' into the round (w)hole of his faith/belief system, which
> > comprises the totality of his comprehension and understanding. In
> > other words, the precise behavior that you exhibit towards Hermit's
> > unansweable and crushing objections to your beloved memeset.
> > You are both slouching towards a bethlehem grail which neither of
> > you shall never reach, for in each case it is a mirage of your
> > zombically memebotic minds. However, in either case, you are both
> > shining, sterling examples of the virulent, rather than symbiont,
> > side of what both lists study. We are already vaccinated against
> > you and your ilk; perhaps one day we shall be able to offer you
> > cures for your respective infections that you would accept - you
> > each steadfastly refuse the elixirs of logic, reason and rationality,
> > and the bread of presented evidence.
> > >
> > > Everett
> > >
> > > Humanity's Ultimate Challenge
> > > http://www.specieup.com (soon to be 'specieup.org' )
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "Brian Brotarlo" <brofont@iloilo.net>
> > > > To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> > > > Subject: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
> > > > Date sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 07:38:32 +0800
> > > > Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> > > >
> > > > > I think it's time to look at the man behind Analytical
> > Metaphysics. We've
> > > > > given enough crap about the pseudo-science. Time to put the
> > pigeon in its
> > > > > hole.
> > > > >
> > > > > For Starters:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hall is:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Loner (image of mad doctor in his mad laboratory)
> > > > > 2. A Little Paranoid (won't publish because he thinks he
> > won't get a fair
> > > > > reading)
> > > > > 3. Desperate (Everette being his disciple)
> > > > > 4. Prone to Hallucinations (Analytical Metaphysics, e.g.
> > fundamental
> > > > > existence or whatever.)
> > > > >
> > > > You forgot Megalomania, complete with delusions of
> > omniscience.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all so far... anybody wants to add more? I'm kindof
> > leaning to
> > > > > Para-Schizo, but isn't it too cliche already. Maybe somebody
> > can be more
> > > > > creative.
> > > > >
> > > > > But not to be too mean, just wants the rat out of his hole.
> > You understand
> > > > > the frustration, of course. Believe me, I can't wait till this hits
> > > > > Newsweek. Or when I die, and Fundamental Existence will
> > hold my hand, I'll
> > > > > be in tears. He says, "Welcome home, former unbeliever.
> > For you were part of
> > > > > mainstream society and now you have come back."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 Dec 08 2000 - 01:34:08 GMT