RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Feb 06 2001 - 11:34:37 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Evolution of ontogeny"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA12821 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:32:02 GMT
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:34:37 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Message-ID: <3A7F8CED.30639.1E0094C@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEIDCNAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    References: <20010206091236.B557@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 6 Feb 2001, at 21:48, Chris Lofting wrote:

    > Robin,
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On
    > > Behalf Of Robin Faichney Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2001 8:13 To:
    > > memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic
    > > evolution
    > >
    > >
    > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:08:19PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net
    > > wrote:
    > > > On 5 Feb 2001, at 20:17, Robin Faichney wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > I did not say we are free only to do some things, or only to
    > > > > some extent -- that is so obvious as to be needless to say.
    > > > > What I said was, we are free only in some senses.
    > > > >
    > > > Well, obviously some of us are free enough to choose to consider
    > > > themselves unfree, or was that complex web of neuronal dynamism
    > > > forever set at the instant of the Big Bang, too?
    > >
    > > Do you think "we are free only in some senses" means "we are
    > > unfree"?
    > >
    > > If you don't understand what I'm saying, why not just say so, and
    > > ask for clarification?
    > >
    >
    > Joe is not capable of that. If he does not understand or he
    > misinterprets (often!) then he switches to negative mode. It is a
    > defence mechanism. Forgive him, he knows not what he does :-) If he
    > did as you suggested then there is the horrifying recognition that he
    > FAILED to understand something. shock horror; no no no .. the fault
    > MUST be yours... :-)
    >
    Chris could not understand sarcasm if it humped his leg.
    >
    > 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 11:34:53 GMT