Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA29519 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:58:40 GMT Message-Id: <200101181856.NAA25626@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:01:48 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEMICMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200101171340.IAA22258@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
Date sent: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:36 +1100
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Joe E. Dees
> > Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 12:46
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re:....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> >
> >
> > Chris asserted:
> > >
> >
> > >The shift in focus takes us away from the 'thing' and more to the
> > >space
> > '>outside', to relational space and this naturally shifts emphasis to
> > >WHAT IS
> > >NOT, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, WHAT COULD BE.
> >
> > Wouldn't this be WHAT IS NOT, WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN,
> > WHAT COULD NOT BE, where the complement to WHAT COULD
> > HAVE BEEN and WHAT COULD (in the future) BE would be
> > WHAT MAY (now) BE? Of COURSE it would logically be so.
> >
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Interesting points showing your bias to thirdness :-)
>
As I said before, some systems are dyadic, some are triadic,
some have other numbers of components. It is you who are biased
to dyadicism; I am biased to no specific impositional quantity for
structural components.
>
> WHAT IS NOT relates to NOW.
>
> WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN relates to a fantasy past as compared to WHAT WAS that
> relates to a 'factual' past. The term WHAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN relates more
> to considering an expression within a set of rules and so not as 'free' as
> WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN. IF you like we can split these into a pair:
>
> what could have been = positive/neutral/negative interpretation of a past
> event, potentials, a forward limitless perspective.
>
> what could not have been = strongly neutral/negative interpretation of past
> event, you are adding rules and regulations and so impose a limit. The
> positive angle is reachable only in a roundabout way.
>
No, you logical retard, WHAT IS NOT is present, WHAT COULDN'T
HAVE BEEN is WHAT WAS NOT in the past, and WHAT COULD
NOT BE is the WHAT IS NOT of the future. To fit in with your
explanation of WHAT COULD BE and WHAT COULD HAVE
BEEN, you would have had to phrase the present tense as WHAT
MAY BE. Nothing says that what could have been wasn't , indeed,
the very meaning of 'what could have been' is that indeed, it could
have been that way, just as 'what could be' means what it says,
i.e. things could indeed be that way in the future. It's simple. You
made a blatant and transparent mistake, which is easy to do when
someone blathers as much word salad as you interminably spew
onto this list. I caught your mistake. You can't bear to admit that
it WAS a mistake, and are attempting to weasel out of it. I won't
let you do so.
<snip Chris' remaining masturbatiry hebephrenia>
===============================================================
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 Jan 18 2001 - 19:00:17 GMT