Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA21714 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:18:10 GMT Message-ID: <005d01c0854e$e11d21e0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEBHCNAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:12:19 -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: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:59 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 Aaron Agassi
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 January 2001 1:13
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
> >
> <snip>
>
> > The bottom line is that I don't like the feeling I get from your writing
> > style, Chris, which dangles on the synapse, until, if all, the
expression
> > completes, and may or may not resolve into intelligibility. And I
> > heartilly
> > resent you inconsideration to the reader. And I wish that you would be
> > willing to encode some basics of writing style onto your pathways.
> >
>
> Ok. then dont read it. :-)
>
Frequently, when you launch screed, I don't.
> <snip>
> > >The interest is in all the expressions that elicit
> > > those feelings.
> > >
> > YOUR interest, Chris.
> >
> >
>
> yes Aaron. MY interest. And that includes concepts as memetics etc etc do
> you think people join lists to NOT discuss their interests? hmmm.. perhaps
> if they are depressed, need some stirring :-)
>
> <snip>
> > > The cognitive analysis shows a sense of 'truth' as a feeling
> > derived from
> > > territorial mapping.
> >
> > What the fuck is 'truth' in quotes? Yes, my foul language communicates
my
> > feeling of irritation! But I would still mantain that what is
> > central is the
> > conceptual and Logical content. Alas, none clear from you, Chris.
> >
>
> 'truth' is a variable term, diffuse, not ontologically precise.
>
Bullsit.
"Is it true that Ernie went to the post office this morning?" quite simple
means, does the assertion correspond to reality? It does not mean: Does the
expression tickle your neurons? Whether or not such may be the test by
knowledge from data retrieval.
>
> > Perhaps you speak not of truth, but clarity or even knowledge,
>
> umm... yes that could fit 'truth' -- clarity, a feeling of precision but
> 'matter of fact', nothing 'heavy' about it.
>
>
These are all distinct.
As illustrated, by, as in the old saying, the stopped clock that is true
twice a day. But one would derive more knowledge of the time of day by
looking up at the sky.
> > arising when
> > the map is true (in correspondence to reality). The security and
> > satisfaction arising from successful error checking.
> >
> >
> > >There is nothing 'mystical' about truth and its source
> > > despite how hard some of you seem to be looking.
> >
> > Or how hard you seem to be dodging, Chris!
> >
> > >
> > > The template based on what/where processing is a 'truth' or more so a
> > 'fact'
> >
> > I avoid using the word 'fact', because I do not know what the
> > word means. I
> > am not at all clear, in common usage, whether facts are truths (defined
as
> > correspondences with reality, NOT any other [ab]usage of the word
'truth),
> > knowledge, or data sets.
> >
>
> howabout 'fact' - no 'deep' implications. 'truth' - implications.
>
Why not just say what you mean and mean what you say?
But, seriously, something may or may have or present deep implications,
whether or not the assertion corresponds to reality at all.
So, how about 'a straight forward proposition' versus 'intricate',
'profound', or even 'problematical'.
>
>
> > > and it is fundamental. It points to answering questions about
> > our METHODS
> > of
> > > analysis and that includes our understanding of what a 'truth' is. BUT
> > this
> > > is all cognitive stuff, BEHIND the expressions.
> >
> > I still do not grok your loose [ab]usage of the word 'behind',
> > Chris. I wish
> > that you'd trouble to spell out what you mean. But I know that you will
> > passively refuse.
> >
>
> I just gave some details to Vincent so read that...
No. I will not work to reconstruct what you cannot trouble yourself to work
out clearly, you inconsiderate bastard! Why should I?
>
> Thanks for the note, a fun read :-) I have often commented on the lack of
> articulation in my writing style, you are not telling me anything new... I
> keep practicing -- perseverance furthers :-)
Quite possibly the only way your articulation will improve, is to rewrite
after getting comments. To honor requests for clarification. Perseverance,
on you part, would advance your writing abilities.
But I will not "persevere" to make up for your laxity, in the face of your
disregard. It's a two way street!
When I could make your prose out at all, I have offered restatements, to
check your meaning. But you do not respond. This is inexcusable.
>
> best
>
> 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 15:19:54 GMT