Date: Thu 08 May 2003 - 23:39:48 GMT
> >From: email@example.com
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329
> >Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:52:32 -0500
> > >
> > > In a massage dated 5/7/2003 2:33:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > > email@example.com pathetically begs for attention:
> > >
> > > Dace STILL will not comment upon my paper, blah to disparage it
> > > would blah to disparage the blah he made which prompted my
> > > respewing of it, since they remumble each other so much, and he
> > > candide bear to graise it, because eyes is minimal. Those who blah
> > > reduce aboriginal work either criticize or embrace the work of my
> > > face's eternal modular apparatus.
> > >
> > > [Jake] Maybe its time for you to talk to someone other than Dace,
> > > Joe. Love, Jake.
> > >
> >Maybe you're right; Dace is certainly incapable of rational
> Talking *about* him isn't going to yield any better results. Don't
> turn this into a grudge match.
> I may have been the first to broach the morphic resonance topic with
> Ted when he first appeared here on this list. I was in a playful mood
> and I thought I remembered him from a Sheldrake forum where we had a
> history of posting on the same threads.
> I'm no great fan of reductionism and I'd suppose you would probably be
> less critical of Dace's criticisms of reductionism if it weren't for
> your heated history with him and your dislike of Sheldrake's ideas.
Dace tends to label everything with which he or his idol disagrees as reductionist, whether the label applies or not.
> BTW Joe aren't you a fan of Piaget, if I recall correctly? Piaget had
> some rather eccentric views of evolution and biology too.
Some parts of Piaget is better than other parts; however, the field of genetic epistemology, which he founded, has the same relation to phenomenology that memetics has to semiotics; one is a structural snapshot (phenomenology, semiotics), while the other is a functional description of a dynamic process (genetic epistemology, memetics).
> Besides, if Ted were a true Sheldrake worshipper and evangelizer, he
> would have tried coaxing us to read the master's latest work _The
> Sense of Being Stared At_, recently published if I'm not mistaken. As
> it stands, again, I might be the first (with this post) to have
> mentioned that book on this list, not Dace. Cut him some slack.
Hokay. It does appear to me, however, that he might not have brought up that pseudoscientific prestidigitator's latest paranormal peroration because of the less than ebullient reception which past works by the wacko have received here. And, remember, I just reposted a paper of mine that I considered to have anticipated a line of thought he recently posted; he is the one who responded with the initial vitriol.
> _________________________________________________________________ The
> new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 2.1.5 : Thu 08 May 2003 - 23:46:20 GMT