Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA23064 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:41:15 GMT Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:06:37 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010323150637.B567@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20010323135319.AAA22129@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010323135319.AAA22129@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:53:18AM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:53:18AM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> On 03/23/01 04:41, Robin Faichney said this-
>
> >Wade's meme-free observations don't come within a million miles of it.
>
> But you're not going to actually see a new thing unless you're in the
> state of reception granted by memelessness.
>
> Like all things, it's a momentary event, and there is a great deal to do
> after the eureka.
You suggested science is meme-free. I pointed out that theory is
absolutely essential to science -- depending on how one is using the
word, it could be valid to say that science *is* a body of theories --
and theories are entirely memetic. My point stands.
> >But any sentient creature observes, by definition.
>
> Indeed. The mechanisms of observation and perception, IMHO, are where
> memes are, if they are are.
Nobody doubts that perception can be and is affected by preconceptions.
But your "nothing-but-ism" is too extreme. You think you've found the
essence -- it is this, and it is nothing else! You're addicted to
disjunction, and starved of conjunction. To suggest that one thing is
true is not to suggest that all other things are untrue. In this case,
it's surely obvious that memes have to be in cognition and reflection,
AS WELL AS observation and perception.
Disjunction addiction is a fascinating feature of modern rationalism.
It most often manifests as the assumption that the validation of one
theory automatically invalidates all other theories in the same area.
To head off an otherwise inevitable criticism -- yes, I know this
is not true of *real* rationalism, which is perfect in every way.
I'm talking about the actual behaviour of people who call themselves
rationalists. Though that could also be termed "real" rationalism,
as that word equivocates. And equivocation is one of the commonest
reasons that superficially contradictory theories are, when analysed,
perfectly compatible.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 18:47:03 GMT