Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA02030 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <F93fcqtclX1V5F74d5W00002b35@hotmail.com> Message-Id: <C1CB3BAC-4B18-11D6-A7EE-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
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
(Admittedly, at the moment, I think sociobiology makes better points.)
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