Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA11087 (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 13:35:26 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B7F@inchna.stir.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: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:33:07 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I didn't mean it as a criticism, simply that I'm not on that other list, so
hadn't seen the comments to provoke your ire (which they no doubt deserved).
The trouble is that responding to these people, in whatever manner, merely
encourages them. And yet, like you, I sometimes feel, maybe I can save
themselves from jumping off the cliff thinking they can fly, if only by
telling them to read the label on the cape that says 'Warning: Cape does not
enable wearer to fly'. After all, such labels weren't just written to
prevent massive lawsuits, but were directed at all true believers out there.
It reminds me of a joke in 'Red Dwarf' (the UK sci-fi comedy series, that I
think has been done in the US as well), of a news report from the future
stating that the original first page of the Bible had been found and said
'All characters and situations presented in this book are ficticious...
etc.'
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Joe E. Dees
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2000 1:34 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: virus: Psychological Profile of Hall
>
> 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 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 - 13:36:54 GMT