Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 20:33:41 GMT
> As I've stated before, Joe is clearly diagnosable with a personality
> disorder. The diagnostic criteria are listed on page 633 of the
> A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates
> from the expectations of an individual's culture, as manifested in two
> (or more) of the following areas:
> 1. cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other
> people, and events)
> 2. affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and
> of emotional response)
> 3. interpersonal functioning
> 4. impulse control
> B. The enduring pattern is inflexible
> C. The pattern leads to distress or impairment in social areas of
> functioning. D. The pattern is stable and of long duration. E. The
> patern is not better accounted for as a consequence of another mental
> disorder. F. The pattern is not due to a drug of abuse, a medication,
> or a general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
> > From: email@example.com
> > > > From: "Wade T. Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > >
> > > > Memory is a dynamic process of the mind, not just a library of
> > > > experiences, but one of the toolkits of the imagination.
> > >
> > > Yes, and the fact that memeories are not statically stored, either
> > > in genes or in brains, strongly suggests that the whole foundation
> > > of reductionist theory is rotten.
> > >
> > And woo-woo fields are healthy as hell, right? (snicker!)
> This comment reveals criterion A-1 (cognition). Now, this is
> obviously pointless ad hominem. I was talking with Wade about memory
> storage in the brain. Joe chimes in with an insulting and ignorant
> comment on fields (an established concept in both physics and
> developmental biology). What's interesting is not so much that he's
> unaware of how faulty his comment is, but that he never stops to think
> that the people on this list are smart enough to see through his
> childish invective. Not only does he believe unconditionally in his
> own innate "rightness," but he expects everyone else to blindly follow
> him in this belief. That he never changes or learns from this mistake
> reveals criteria B (inflexibility) and D (stable and of long
> duration). His history of difficulty with other lists reveals
> criterion C (impairment of social functioning). I assume he's not
> schizophrenic or merely suffering from a head injury (E and F).
The fact is that everyone but Dace sees, and has long seen, through his shaking of the 'reductionistic' shibboleth every time a point is raised that might possibly contradict Sheldrakean dogma (an unstated subtext to everything Dace posts). Now apply those criteria he lists to him.
> > > > What you _were_ heralding, remember it or not, was the concept
> > > > of 'morphic fields', which are part of Sheldrake's lunatic
> > > > explanation of nature.
> > >
> > > And I will continue to defend Sheldrake as long as other
> > > listmembers keep bringing him up. (The very first time I
> > > discussed Sheldrake on this list was after Scott brought him up.
> > > This pattern has continued right up to the present post.)
> > >
> > Cause Sheldrake's Dace's MAN! His Messiah and Muse. The fulcrum of
> > his onlist existence.
> This comment reveals all four areas of criterion A. Again, there's a
> clear-cut cognitive deficit here (and not just because I comment on a
> wide variety of topics and authors). Late last September I had to
> explain to the list moderator, Bruce Edmonds, that I'm not the one who
> keeps bringing up Rupert Sheldrake. No matter what topic is under
> discussion, if I disagree with something Joe Dees says, he comes back
> with an insulting comment on Sheldrake. Then I'm forced into a
> position where I must correct Joe's errors.
This is megalomania at its most blatant.
> As soon as I'd posted
> this observation, Joe came back with yet more invective against
> Sheldrake, nicely proving my point. Now he's proving it again. It
> simply never occurs to him that his anti-Sheldrake comments make him
> look defensive and hostile.
No, it's just that some people have difficulty suffering fools like Sheldrake and his flat-eyed proselytic minions gladly; I refuse to suffer them at all.
> He assumes that everyone will see him
> exactly the same way he sees himself-- as a paragon of reason and good
> sense. He also reveals here a strong affective component (2), as well
> as interpersonal (3) and impulse control deficits (4).
A nice job of psychological projection of one's own neuroses, but anyone who reads the archives can recognize that this is how Dace
(and few others) views himself.
> Joe's comments in the following exchange can only be described as High
> > > > > > And very few manuscripts here ARE solicited; I
> > > > > > simply reposted it to demonstrate that I had more than
> > > > > > anticipated the line of argument which Dace proferred, and
> > > > > > that perhaps he was even inspired to it by my paper, the
> > > > > > substance of which I cannot fail to notice that Dace fails
> > > > > > to comment upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a case study, Joe. Keep up the good work!
> > > > >
> > > > As always: no answer.
> > >
> > > Because you're beyond the pale, Joe. Just look at your statement
> > > above. What happened was that Keith offered his observation that
> > > communism was much like a religion. This reminded of something
> > > Toynbee said, so I dug it up. Then you come along with this truly
> > > bizarre revision of events. It just goes to show that your brain
> > > runs on hallucination instead of glucose, like the rest of us.
> > >
> > Dace STILL will not comment upon my paper, because to disparage it
> > would be to disparage the remarks he made which prompted my
> > reposting of it, since they resemble each other so much, and he
> > cannot bear to praise it, because it is mine. Those who can't
> > produce original work either criticize or embrace the work of others
> > - Dace's eternal modus operandus.
> Again, I simply responded to something Keith said with a useful quote
> from Toynbee. Joe then posts (for the second time!) a veritable
> dissertation that no one wants to read and is then incensed when I
> fail to comment on it. Poor thing! Keep in mind that a personality
> disorder is essentially the ego of a six-year-old in the body of an
Actually, many have been interested in reading my work, on this list, and on others. Some of my work has also been published in various online journals. Dace has yet to produce a single solitary work of originality and substance, and his green-eyed monster shows behind the curtain of his forced derision. I would not grant such a person the emotional maturity of a six-year-old, or even close; he seems to retain Piaget's magickal world-view, where all things are supposed to revolve around him, and tantrums and outbursts result when they do not. But his ad hominem attack upon me is all he can muster, since there was no wiggle room between the horns of the logical dilemma with which I presented him; he fails to disparage my work becaise his comments agree with it, and it would be self-disparagement, but he cannot bear to bring himself to praise it, because to do so would be to compliment me
(heaven forfend!). So, he adopts the 'I don't read it, nor should anyone else' stance of a two year old who inserts his fingers firmly in his ears while petulantly stamping his feet and yelling 'la, la, all, I can't hear you.' Sadly typical of him.
> > > > One of the reasons that Dace disparages the
> > > > work of others must be jealousy,
> > >
> > > According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
> > > Disorders (Fourth Edition), the belief that other people are
> > > jealous of you is a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder.
> > > This is odd, because I had you pegged with antisocial personality
> > > disorder. Well, live and learn. Of course, what you really need
> > > is six months alone with a therapist, so you can get an accurate
> > > diagnosis.
> > >
> > What Dace needs to do is furnish his psychological credentials,
> > instead of indulging in a dilettantish perusal of psychology, as
> > many such as he do who know something is wrong with their neuronal
> > firing patterns, but can't quite grok what it is. Might I suggest,
> > considering his propensity
> > slavishly endorse pseudoscientific claptrap, that a stiff regimen of
> > antipsychotics might benefit him? I sincerely doubt if talk therapy
> > would help his case; this list has long tried that route with him
> > with a notable lack of success.
> Whatever I say in regard to him-- no matter how well thought out-- he
> simply throws it back in my face, only ten times more viciously. It
> doesn't matter how many times it's revealed that he tends to
> thoughtlessly attack people. He sees himself in such a positive light
> that it never occurs to him that other people might see him as a
I do not thoughtlessly attack people; I DO attack people's thoughtlessness.
> But he's right about one thing: I'm not a licensed mental health
> practitioner. While it certainly doesn't take a license to spot a
> personality disorder, Joe should indeed see a professional. And it
> won't take six months for his therapist to diagnose him. One or two
> sessions should suffice. Unfortunately, people with personality
> disorders almost never seek help or recognize that they have a
> problem. The problem is always with the other guy.
How ironic of Dace to write this. Of course, he is incapable of perceiving the irony; his neurosis has installed blinding memetic filters.
> All of this is highly relevant to memetics. The pathological ego is
> crucial in the mutation of idea into meme. Memes exploit our
> unconscious needs. Rene Dahinden maintained his ludicrous position on
> Bigfoot because he was a narcissist (one of ten varieties of PD) and
> couldn't admit that he'd been taken. The meme perpetuated itself in
> the face of contrary evidence by exploiting his pride. The striking
> feature of the disturbed ego is the capacity to believe one's own
> lies. This makes PD's far more convincing than they would otherwise
> be. All it takes is one fanatic like Dahinden for a whole group of
> eager believers to form up around him. Pathological memes can spread
> to individuals who lack a pathological ego only in the context of a
> group. The classic example is Scientology. Once the group is in
> place, its pathological memes keep it intact even after the death of
> its founding narcissist (in this case, L. Ron Hubbard). Of course,
> not every PD is able to extend his personal pathology to the level of
> a group, as demonstrated by Joe's inability to con the memetics list.
No, as demonstrated by Dace's inability to Sheldrakeanly infect the memetics list. Dace is indeed a classic case study in the psychopathology of the disorder of a meme-driven personality, a fervent believer in and pathological proliferator of a treasured other's pseudorational absurdities (kinda like a dogmatic Muchausen's By Proxy personality disorder) and as such is worthy of our perusal, if, for no other reason, so that we can avoid becoming like him.
Just another chunk of evidence in Dace's long series self-proof of his OCD-driven anti-Joe and pro-Sheldrake psychopathology.
> 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 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 20:42:01 GMT