Re: Self-defense

From: Lawrence de Bivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 12:59:33 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Self-defense"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA21988 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:26:19 GMT
    Message-ID: <004d01c0643b$7ccafde0$dd63b8d0@default>
    From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <20001212104525.A350@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Subject: Re: Self-defense
    Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:59:33 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Greetings, Robin

    In the self-profiling drills that we've done, we have found that people can
    minimize the 'defensive' aspect of their self-representation if the context
    in which they are profiling themselves is non-threatening or in which their
    social status is not at stake.

    What is more difficult is the ability of an individual to 'know' himself AND
    self-profiling technique, (if only the profiling taxonomy) at the same time.
    We have not figured out a solution to this that works particularly well, and
    so still focus on elicitation of a person's profile by another (trained)
    person. We have developed prototype automated profiling but it is not yet as
    elegant as I would like. The substantive limitations of doing it with
    computer mediation seems matched by the substantive limits of a trained but
    average-skilled elicitor.

    - Lawrence

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 5:45 AM
    Subject: Self-defense

    > I find the possibility of a memetic analysis of the self quite
    > fascinating, but there's a problem.
    >
    > Is there anyone here who can clearly distinguish between defending
    > the self and defending themselves? Who can argue for a more than
    > merely memetic self without taking the counter argument personally?
    > Who does not feel at all threatened by it, being motivated entirely by
    > a desire for truth? All those I've found willing to defend the self
    > make it very obvious, in their emotional tone, that they feel they're
    > defending themselves.
    >
    > Or is that inevitable? Is the distinction I'm drawing here valid,
    > or is any defense of the self necessarily motivated by emotion?
    > Is the self an irreducibly emotional entity?
    >
    > --
    > 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 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 Dec 12 2000 - 15:27:52 GMT