Re: I know one when I see one

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 05:02:21 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 04:32 , Philip Jonkers wrote:

    > Losing one's temper is by far not always
    > irrational (in the sense
    > of being unexplainable in rational terms)

    'Losing one's temper' would seem to me to be, by definition, irrational.

    'Rising to anger for a cause', on the other hand, could be a rational reaction to a situation, especially if conditions were prepared for.

    But, providing motivation for actions is so sketchy and tentative, that this complexity you speak of would seem insurmountable, at all times, for almost any behavior. Which is why I think memetics needs to ignore motivation. (I don't care if other things don't want to ignore it, nor am I demanding that they don't....)

    There is nothing behavioralist about a stance that admits of chance and aleatory events, and nothing reductionist about the performance-only hypothesis of cultural transmission.

    - 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 : Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 05:06:26 GMT