Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA15934 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:04:50 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BF5@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:03:33 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
You want an example, here's one-
You completely fail to understand semiotics, as Joe has so evidently
demonstrated. If you can find a semiotician on the planet who concurs with
your intepretation of it, I'd like to know who they are.
Your interpretation of valid questions obviously doesn't include ones that
offer simple oppositions to your ideas that you can't answer and won't
answer. I'll try again, Chris; how do light-bulbs work?
If the characteristics of light were entirely interpretation, lighbulbs
should have stopped working as soon as the particle/wave problem was
identified.
The colonial remark was a cheap shot, but if only you'd stop talking about
people's arses... not a coprophiliac are you?
As to being scared- Am I ignoring you? Or refusing to engage in discussion
with you?
Let me explain in simple terms Chris, where you've gone wrong. You've
obviously picked up the idea that absolute, concrete truths cannot exist,
because they will always be filtered through human perception and
interpretation. But, you conflate this when then arguing that as a result
of this realisation, that the entire universe and everything in it is thus
merely an interpretation, with no independent existence. This is a kind of
universal relativism.
You then say well if interpretation is all, how are our interpretations
structured? Then you present an unsubstantiated, unevidenced idiolectic
theory, which conflicts with all of the stages of thinking that led up to
it. It conflicts with the first part, that there are no absolute truths,
because you present it as "the" truth, "the" answer- to_everything_, It
conflicts also with the notion that there are no things, only
intepretations, because it tries to explain the structure behind
interpretation, which presumably must have existence outside of
interpretation. But it is a self-unaware theory, in that it regards itself
not as yet another interpretation (which in inherently must be in its own
terms, because it argues everything is interpretation) but as "the" truth.
In order to try and confuse people about the inherent contradictions in your
theory, you have scrabbled around for any ideas that suggest uncertainty or
indeterminacy in a field, and then used those to argue that the
indeterminacy is proof that it's all interpretation. Unfortunately for you,
this often involes a complete misunderstanding of all sorts of disciplines,
often deliberately so, in order to suit your dogmatic dyadism. Semiotics is
one, quantum computing is another, where the whole damn point is that the
0/1 dyad doesn't work, as Joe's forwarded post showed.
You can clutch at multiversal straws regarding the speed of light, but like
Aaron Agassi's subjective lightbulbs, in this universe, you'll be banging
your knees against the coffee table looking for those straws, unless you
give in and use the light-switch.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Chris Lofting
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 1:02 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
> Your sweeping statements lack foundation Vincent, you are doing what you
> accuse me of doing. tsk tsk -- very weak. Where have my use of references
> been challenged, which *SPECIFIC* one is which *specific* context? the
> only
> so called challenges have been from Mr "I have a broom up my arse" Dees
> and
> he is 'lost' :-)
>
> As for you .. well you know about you so I will let you wallow... you
> chickened out like Dees does when things get 'difficult'. There is no
> engagement in your note, you copped out of reading references and asking
> intelligent questions, all too hard for you perhaps?
>
> BTW the remark about being a colonial - LOL!!! shows you defences at work,
> shows a lack of class as well ... what are you ...LSE? :-)
>
> So Vincent, are you going to get off your arse and ask valid questions?
> doubt it .. not capable..
> or too scared...
>
> 'warmest' regards,
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 14:06:44 GMT