Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329

From: Dace (
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 21:08:47 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329"

    > From: "Scott Chase" <>
    > > > > >
    > > > > > 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.
    > > > >
    > > > >Joe:
    > > > >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.
    > > > >
    > > > At this point, if either of you offers anything of value to a
    > > > discussion, it might be quite difficult for the other to acknowledge
    > > > it or approach each other objectively, removed from the history of
    > > > heated tit-for-tat. You two are obviously not on the best of terms and
    > > > may start wearing list members out, except those who thrive on the
    > > > aggressiveness of pro-wrestling style trash talking.
    > >
    > >Joe:
    > >And my meta-comparison of the relationship between phenomenology
    > >and genetic epistemology with the relationshop between semiotics and
    > >memetics, securely anchoring memetics in an acknowleged pantheon of
    > >contemporarily accepted psychological and philosophical perspectives,
    > >is of no value here, the place which desperately hungers for legitimacy
    > >for its viewpoint? Puh-LEEEZE!
    > >
    > I wasn't saying you have nothing to contribute, though your attacks on
    > aren't quite in the edifying category. Dace could *mis*read the same
    > conditional point I made, but my emphasis was on whether either of you
    > be in a position to recognize a valuable contribution by the other, given
    > the distorting effect of mutual animosity. This animosity has apparently
    > distorted your perception to the point that you mistook my comment as an
    > insult instead of a critical reflecton upon the situation between you two.

    I understand what you're trying to do here, Scott, and I applaud your effort. But you've misread the situation. I feel no animosity toward Joe whatsoever. There's no tit-for-tat game going on here. He just keeps attacking me, and in the course of defending myself, I've tried to explain why this pattern keeps repeating. When I label him with a personality disorder, it's not to hurt his feelings but simply to explain to the rest of the list what's going on here. This is a standard condition. There are millions of people diagnosable with a PD in the US. While Joe is the most over-the-top case I've ever encountered, in "real life" or online, there's nothing particularly unusual about this. PD's rarely improve, and there's no cure. Joe will continue insulting me-- like claiming I'm incapable of rational thought or, above, where he says I label everything I oppose as
    "reductionistic," a ridiculous accusation that he can't possibly back up with any examples-- and he will continue offering hallucination as fact, as in the above claim that I responded to his recent paper with the "initial vitriol." He will also continue promoting himself as some kind of genius whom we should all unconditionally admire.


    =============================================================== 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 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 21:14:38 GMT