Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA21878 (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 16:00:30 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BFC@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: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:59:03 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<or (a THIRD) you cannot understand what I am saying. Thats ok
Vincent. dont
> worry about it. :-)>
>
The more one reads your responses the more pissed off one gets.
Your utterly misplaced smugness demonstrates only your own stupidity. I ask
again, name a single semiotician who has expressed on record concurrence
with your (mis)understanding and interpretation of the field.
<QM favours my perspective over yours. :-) >
QM is an inchoate discipline as this time, I refer you again to
Thorne's quote. Again, you are using uncertainties in any theory you come
across as proof of your idiolectic theory. That's not only not good enough,
it's unethical, involving as it does deliberate misinterpretation of theory.
<Electrons is the label we give to a set of signals
> we get from our instruments; instruments designed to extend our senses
> since
> all we can build are senses 'like us'. >
>
Rubbish.
<It is possible that 'electrons', 'photons', 'neutrons' are in fact
the many
> expressions of the SAME thing,>
>
Exactly, my point. You think all these things are intepretations existing
only within our minds. This is a basic error,w hich you fail to see. I bet
you don't make that error when you cross the road do you? Or do you walk
out into traffic regarding the fast moving large vehicles as merely
expressions?
<I did not say it was, I point to the one general method BEHIND all
of the
> interpretations. You keep missing that for some reason, you seem so STUCK
> at
> the coalface, the expression level.>
>
There you go again talking about behind.. see Aaron's previous post.
<I suggest you slowly work you way through the recursive
dichotomisation
> process as well as the development process I have discussed in the past re
> archetypal-to-typal and the TRANSFORMATIONS at the typal into more
> archeypal
> etc all says EXACTLY what the above quote is TRYING to see with obviously
> no
> knowledge on HOW 'in here' works. I can 'see' the template working on
> him.>
>
Ignore what CIT's Feynman professor of theoretical physics says if
you like, but don't try and pretend that he confirms your tragedy of a
theory. Quite clearly you don't understand the quote, to use your phrase,
"don't worry".
<You miss the point again... I emphasise looking what is BEHIND
expressions
> and I go further by looking at what is BEHIND the BEHIND and eventually
> you
> get down to the bedrock, the template, in that if I cut that level you
> lose
> your mind :-)>
>
And you have to audacity to accuse others of being up their own
arse, with your three levels of behind.
<Think deeper Vincent, so far you are still being 'lite'. :-)>
I am already aware of the major basic flaws that any person of any
intellect whatsoever (that excludes you, of course) would see if they had
the misfortune to come across your ideas. I have asked you about a million
times for a single piece of original evidence to support your theory, and
all you do is throw that back through more reiteration of your ideas. It is
you who are lite- on every count of what makes a theory plausible.
Vincent
===============================================================
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 - 16:02:21 GMT