Re: Self-defense

From: LJayson@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 23:56:24 GMT

  • Next message: LJayson@aol.com: "Re: Self-defense" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA14952 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:59:42 GMT
From: <LJayson@aol.com>
Message-ID: <46.e325ce3.27714fa8@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:56:24 EST
Subject: Re: Self-defense
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_46.e325ce3.27714fa8_boundary"
Content-Disposition: Inline
X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 171
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    In a message dated 12/12/00 2:58:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
    robin@reborntechnology.co.uk writes:

    > 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
    >

    Hi Robin,

    I can do a memetic analysis of the self. I agree that it is a
    fascinating process. Why do you bring in the notion of
    defending the self?

    Len Jayson

    ===============================================================
    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 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 00:01:07 GMT