Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011

From: Wade Smith (
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 18:47:55 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011"

    Received: by id SAA02030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:54:26 +0100
    Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:47:55 -0400
    Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
    From: Wade Smith <>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481)
    Precedence: bulk

    On Monday, April 8, 2002, at 12:43 , Scott Chase wrote:

    > Kant's assertion that we impose our own laws upon nature

    Man is the measure of all things. But, what is being _measured_
    can be _observed_ without these laws.

    (I think all this piffle about observational filters stems from
    the measuring tools, not the perceptions.)

    Observation is a multifold process, and, condemning it to
    filters at all times is, IMHO, wrong.

    The creative process requires observation, and preconceptions,
    and it also requires being outside of these.

    I prefer to separate the processes of observation, behavior, and
    intention, as well as never denying the problems inherent in
    _all_ perceptive mechanisms.

    I ain't a blank slater, and I don't hold any buckets. I'm not
    even possessed of a socio-biologic bias. I'm a skeptic. Make
    your point, I'll share its argument, until something better
    comes along.

    (Admittedly, at the moment, I think sociobiology makes better points.)

    - Wade

    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 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 19:11:03 BST