RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 09:22:11 GMT

  • Next message: Aaron Agassi: "Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on..."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA02746 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:26:46 GMT
    Message-Id: <200101190924.EAA06275@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:22:11 -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: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMENLCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    References: <200101181856.NAA25626@mail2.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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:11:41 +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: Friday, 19 January 2001 6:02
    > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    > >
    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > tsk tsk, you still cant see it... I will try again:
    >
    > my distinctions:
    > WHAT IS NOT deals with the present.
    > WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN deals with potentials in a past experience.
    > WHAT COULD BE deals with potentials in a future experience.
    >
    > Very simple.
    >
    I should know it is impossible to instruct the brainless (sigh), but I'll
    try again...
    WHAT IS NOT deals with what cannot happen in the present.
    WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN deals with what might have happened
    in the past.
    WHAT COULD BE deals with what might still happen in the future.
    As the first term, WHAT IS NOT, possesses a negative not found
    in WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN and WHAT COULD BE, they do
    not correlate as isomorphic expressions in differing time contexts;
    WHAT MAY or MIGHT (now) BE IS THEIR LOGICAL
    COMPLEMENT.

    Of course you will disagree; you can do no other, even when, no,
    especially when YOU ARE WRONG (a possibility that has
    occurred - and in fact attained certainty - concerning you to
    practically everyone on this list BUT you who has been here for any
    modicum of time). You are the person who invents fourth terms for
    irreduceably triadic systems and then refuses to apply the same
    methodology to irreduceably dyadic ones; when I called you on it,
    you had nothing whatsoever you could say, so you said nothing for
    a while, and now bounce back without a word concerning it, as if
    you're hoping that we've forgotten in the interim: we haven't. The
    QED, the finis, the coup de grace, was applied to your root
    assumptions, and you had not even the human decency to respond
    to that bare and transparently obvious fact, but you now return and
    blither and blather your interminable hebephrenic word salad as if it
    did not even happen, but it did, and if you wish, I will do it again.
    You were, quite simply and irrefuteably, wrong, and did not
    possess the personal integrity to admit same, nor do I expect such
    integrity from you now. It does not matter. Even people of modest
    intelligence can understand a ciontradiction when they see it, and
    you were mired in self-contradiction up to your lips.

    <rest of his wordy and meaningless garbage snipped>

    ===============================================================
    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 Jan 19 2001 - 09:28:24 GMT