Re: Standard definition

From: Wade Smith (
Date: Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 19:33:50 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:54 , Bill Spight wrote:

    > So, then, "Stopping at red lights," "Refraining from taking things that
    > do not belong to you," "Being nice to your mother," "Wearing matching
    > colors," and so on, are performances, not just stopping, refraining from
    > taking things, being nice, and wearing clothes (although they are
    > performances, too). Right?

    Stopping at a red light demands a red light to stop at, so it is not just stopping, right.

    Not taking something that does not belong to you demands being in a situation where you could, but do not, so it is not just refraining, right.

    How one is nice to one's mother is way too loaded a condition to comment upon, but, it might not just be being nice, right....

    Wearing matching colors demands the requisite colored clothes are available, so, it is not just wearing clothes, right.

    The social convention of stopping at red lights is an ordinance-defined social convention designed for public safety, on one hand, but it has many hands, and just because one is stopped there is no direct indication of intent.

    Situations like the Prisoner's Dilemma (itself of a patent uselessness simply _because_ it is an exercise without real consequence) are analyzations with sufficient environment-damping to be data-gathering resources. There are, unfortunately, no ethical opportunities for actual experiments.

    - 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) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 19:37:58 GMT