Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 19:47:12 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: question about memes"
  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence"

    Received: by id TAA18151 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:53:10 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: FW: MD Dawkins on quantum/mysticism convergence
    Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 11:47:12 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2002 19:47:12.0307 (UTC) FILETIME=[88233830:01C1CDEC]
    Precedence: bulk

    >Since we cannot be certain of anything and our Western scientistic
    >worldview crumbles at the subatomic level, whatever subjectivist mumbo
    >I happen to spout is just as valid as whatever objectivist mumbo-jumbo you
    >spout off. We are just two subjective ships passing along a sea of quantum
    >uncertainty. My whims are as valid as your hard won knowledge.
    >Does this help?
    I'm not sure what it helps, but until we can agree with any certainty on
    what the words we are using refer to, it pretty much states the case. A lot
    of the confusion can be cleared up by looking at what the writer is trying
    to do with his words. As Wade pointed out, the man who is using his words
    to sell snake oil does not use them to mean the same thing as the man who is
    using the same words to add to the world's body of knowledge. Meaning is
    tied to context and intent. Words in isolation have no meaning.


    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 20:08:10 GMT