Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA18223 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:50:37 GMT From: <lhousego@axa.com.au> X-Lotus-FromDomain: NMH@NMHEXT@NMHDMZ To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-Id: <4A2569F3.0008D842.00@c2.nm.com.au> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:44:52 +1000 Subject: Re: realist-rationalist quad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Umm... I'm kinda curious how you accurately quantify this beyond
"guessometrics". If you are unable to deliver hard numbers using a
consistent methodology, I think talk of anything beyond putting a blott
somewhere that looks about right is a bit overkill.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net> on 14/02/2001 10:35:30 am
Please respond to memetics@mmu.ac.uk
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
cc:
Subject: Re: realist-rationalist quad
John,
At 10:55 AM 2/14/01 +1100, you wrote:
>Bear in mind that these are polar, not discrete, options.
? Not sure I understand. I changed the website
(http://www.htcomp.net/markmills/real-rational.htm) to look more polar, but
I doubt this is what you mean by polar and discrete.
> This describes
>a field of positions that may be occupied in degrees rather than kind.
Are you saying it is impossible to 100% realist and 100% rationalist at the
same time?
It seems to be that one or the other must be primary at any given
moment. It seems like a matter of methodology. Does one start with
rational intuition? Does one start with refined sensual data (realism)?
One has to start somewhere.
>Moreover, there may not be equilibrium states (see David Lewis'
>_Conventions_ for a description of these) but rather some sort of
>chaotic attractors so that the most stable position is something like
>pragmatist realism but not entirely.
Pragmatic realism... hm, where is that on the quad? 90% realism, 30%
rationalism? Given my 'first steps' metaphor, 90 steps toward enhanced
sensual data and 30 towards rational understanding? And of course, does
this have anything do to with epistemology?
>How you could determine this I am
>not sure. Perhaps it could be modelled and then tested against
observations.
That sounds interesting. Did any ideas come to mind?
Mark
http://www.htcomp.net/markmills
===============================================================
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
**********************************************************************
Important Note
This email (including any attachments) contains information which is
confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, distribute or copy this
email. If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email. Any views expressed in this
email are not necessarily the views of AXA. Thank you.
**********************************************************************
===============================================================
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 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 00:52:47 GMT