Re: Labels for memes

From: Robin Faichney (robin@reborntechnology.co.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001 - 21:11:03 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA22085 (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 21:14:45 GMT
    Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:11:03 +0000
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Labels for memes
    Message-ID: <20010214211103.A1527@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <3A87EDDE.30394.332D97@localhost>; <20010214095936.B11391@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A8A84B1.8000.30CA1F5@localhost>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
    In-Reply-To: <3A8A84B1.8000.30CA1F5@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:14:25PM -0600
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:14:25PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > On 14 Feb 2001, at 9:59, Robin Faichney wrote:
    >
    > > Do you get it now? You list some authors, without titles, I respond
    > > citing a particular title by one of them, you come back with a
    > > hysterical accusation of misrepresentation, but you're looking at a
    > > different book, one whose title you first mention in the same message
    > > in which you make the accusation. Your mistake, not mine.
    > >
    > Are you SURE it was the same message, Robin, and not a
    > subsequent one? Speak VERY carefully here.

    OK, here are the relevant parts of the relevant messages, each with
    date, time, message id and, for all but the first, in-reply-to id:

    <OLD QUOTES BEGIN>

    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:20:20 -0600
    Message-ID: <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>

    You obviously are not subscribed to the online Journal of
    Consciousness Studies. I suggest you remedy that. And it IS
    quite generally accepted; see Pribam, Fodor, Gazzaniga, LeDoux,
    Neisser, Kagan, Zajonc, Izard, Damasio, Pinker, Koenig, Kosslyn,
    Luria, Uttal, Stich, Edelman, Popper, Eccles, Changeau, Ornstein,
    Kinsbourne, Varela, the list goes on and on and on...

    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:41:57 +0000
    Message-ID: <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    In-Reply-To: <3A7FB3C4.15358.277C463@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on
    +Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:20:20AM -0600

    The one title by one of these writers that I have immediately to hand
    is Ornstein's The Evolution of Consciousness. Well, that certainly
    seems relevant.

    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:17:39 -0600
    Message-ID: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <20010206154157.A984@reborntechnology.co.uk>

    > > And it IS
    > > quite generally accepted; see Pribam (LANGUAGES OF THE
    BRAIN), Fodor (REPRESENTATIONS, PSYCHOSEMANTICS, A
    THEORY OF CONTENT AND OTHER ESSAYS), Gazzaniga (MIND
    MATTERS, NATURE'S MIND), LeDoux (THE INTEGRATED MIND),
    Neisser (COGNITION AND REALITY), Kagan, Zajonc & Izard
    (EMOTIONS, COGNITION AND BEHAVIOR), Damasio (DESCARTE'S
    ERROR, THE FEELING OF WHAT HAPPENS), Pinker (THE
    LANGUAGE INSTINCT, HOW THE MIND WORKS), Koenig & Kosslyn
    (WET MIND), Luria (COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, THE WORKING BRAIN), Uttal (THE
    +PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF MIND), Stich (INNATE IDEAS, FROM FOLK PSYCHOLOGY TO COGNITIVE
    +SCIENCE),
    Edelman (his trilogy, BRIGHT AIR, BRILLIANT FIRE, A UNIVERSE
     OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Popper & Eccles (THE SELF AND ITS
    BRAIN), Changeau (NEURONAL MAN), Ornstein (THE PSYCHOLOGY
    OF CONSCIOUSNESS), Kinsbourne (ASYMMETRICAL
    FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN), Varela (AUTOPOESIS AND
    COGNITION, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL AUTONOMY),
    the list goes on and on and on...but my work for you doesn't. Next
    you'll be wanting me to transcribe lengthy sections from them like I
    did with Sperry. Nuh-uh; do some of your own work.
    <snip>
    Hokay, I'll quote Ornstein out of that book just to show everyone
    what you should already know if you indeed have the book. On
    page 52 it states:
    <snip>
     I've conclusively shown, with direct
    paginated quotes, how you intentionally misrepresented the
    content of Ornstein's book to the list.

    From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:26:36 +0000
    Message-ID: <20010206202636.A1517@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    In-Reply-To: <3A7FDD53.21676.31A231A@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on
    +Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:17:39AM -0600

    Anyone in their right mind would have concluded
    we're looking at different books. Instead of which you first suggest
    maybe I don't really have the book -- despite my quote from it -- then
    say I "intentionally misrepresented the content of Ornstein's book to
    the list". That is not the assumption of a reasonable person.

    In your list above you mention Ornstein's Psychology of Consciousness, but
    not his Evolution of Consciousness, which is what I referred to. It seems
    safe to assume you're looking at the former.

    <OLD QUOTES END>

    I just noticed there's a strange arrangement of quote marks (>) at the
    beginning of your authors+titles list. Interesting...

    > Your first
    > denunciation was that I had simply supplied a list of authors, minus
    > titles, and i inserted the titles within THAT VERY MESSAGE the
    > moment I received it, and resent it - long before receiving your
    > confused screed concerning another book entirely.

    Yes, I'm confused, Joe, but only about what's in your mind. I'd no idea
    you tried such a clumsy attempt to make me look bad, and I certainly
    never accused you of it, but now you've drawn my attention to it, that's
    the only interpretation I can see, the only "sense" I can make of it.
    But it's so f***ing stupid! Anyone interested only needs to go back
    and look at the original message! What the f**k are you thinking of, Joe?

    I've now had enough of this silliness. There is enough information here
    for anyone to go back and look at the actual messages in the archives.
    The Subject line reads "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution",
    and all the relevant messages are dated 6 Feb. Though I doubt if
    anyone cares that much. You can have the last word if you like, Joe.
    Much good may it do you!

    -- 
    Robin Faichney
    robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
    

    =============================================================== 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 - 21:16:56 GMT