Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

From: Aaron Agassi (agassi@erols.com)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 12:50:39 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Now They're Singing a Different Song"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA04523 (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 12:54:13 GMT
    Message-ID: <012e01c08216$6d096ec0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com>
    From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEOBCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:50:39 -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 5.50.4522.1200
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:17 AM
    Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...

    >
    >
    > > -----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 10:25
    > > 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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:18:17 +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 8:22
    > > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > > > Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > > 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.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Oh is *THAT* what you are raving about, symmetry! 1:1 ness!.
    > > God, Joe took
    > > > you a while to get that across. Ok I get you now but you are
    > > sort of 'wrong'
    > > > :-) In my writing the emphasis of the NOT deals with an
    > > additional cognitive
    > > > process, namely the use of identifying something by its
    > > negation (if you go
    > > > through my material there is an emphasis on 1:many etc and cognitive
    > > > processes ..).
    > > >
    > > > Hmm..I think the 'problem' in our communications is you try to
    > > come from a
    > > > more logical perspective (or assume mine is 'pure' logic)
    > > whereas in fact I
    > > > have always come from a cognitive perspective. (and so my emphasis on
    > > > neurology/senses etc 1:many etc etc etc, you try to work within, I
    work
    > > > across).
    > > >
    > > I need read no further. Once you have renounced logic, you lose
    > > the ability to argue for or against anything, since all argument
    > > proceeds logically. I have long suspected you of knowing how
    > > illogical and nonsensical you are; I never expected you to actually
    > > admit same. However, now that you have rendered yourself
    > > publicly unabledue to lack of logical tools, to distinguish truth from
    > > falsehood, or to discern either validity or soundness, or the
    > > absence of either, you are revealed to be absolutely useless to any
    > > rational pursuits.
    >
    > Joe, you lack imagination. You are so rigid, so ALL or NOTHING, so literal
    > minded. so LIMITED. Get some help.
    >
    True, Logic demarcates certain possibilities as mutually exclusive. Thus
    rationality can be rigid. Where as antirational Relativism is just fuzzy and
    mush minded.
    > >
    >

    ===============================================================
    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 - 12:55:52 GMT