RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 06:55:56 GMT

  • Next message: Jeremy Bradley: "RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence: Israel and Palestine"

    Received: by id HAA26348 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:07:41 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:55:56 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
    In-Reply-To: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FB9E@fillan>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    At 04:12 PM 7/03/02 -0000, you wrote:
    > I didn't say that, only that oral tradition is problematic which it

    I would like to get away from our personal opinions on issues and look at
    the formation of those ideas/memes. As I said before we, as a culture, have
    developed the notion that text is stable. Why? It can be clearly
    demonstrated that language, use and meanings change over remarkably short
    periods of time. Also history is written, usually by the victors, some time
    after the events and often hides as many truths as it portrays.
    The thing that we text-based societies miss in deriding the accuracy of
    oral society's historical accounts is that is that remembering exactly is
    important, it is a cultural feature.
    In the groups that I have associated with, the old people tell the story
    and then check the retelling for errors. Only a group member who can retell
    a story faithfully gets to be the 'custodian' of that story. It's not that
    simple of course Vincent, but don't get the idea that orality is like a
    trans-millennial Chinese whisper.

    > You don't think accounts passed down from person to person through
    >oral communication are subjective?

    I think that the stories were subjective in the first place

    >(Jeremy wrote)
    > < In the literature I have read, and in the seminars, programs and
    >discussions I
    >> have heard and/or participated in, I have heard no serious suggestion that
    >> mindless masacre of people occurred in this country before European
    >> invasion.>
    >(Vincent Replied)
    > Who said anything about 'mindless' masscres? I'm talking about
    >sytematic territorial disputes that have historically occurred in all human
    >societies. You're adding emotional emphasis to my points that are not
    >there, or intended.
    > Vincent
    Sorry about that Vincent
    I should have said that there was a belief common to ALL pre-invasion
    nations and language-groups that the country 'owned' the people rather than
    the other way around. Therefore, even if some conflict did occur, it was
    not over territory as, even if did 'win', the country wouldn't 'know' you.
    I can't describe this facet much better than this without going into a long
    treatment of the subject and it may well be so foreign to your
    understandings as to be misunderstood anyway.
    My main point is still the question of whether territoriality and
    possessiveness is natural/genetic or nurture/memetic.

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 08 2002 - 07:17:53 GMT