Re: Durkheim redux

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Thu 14 Apr 2005 - 19:54:07 GMT

  • Next message: Kate Distin: "Re: Durkheim redux"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate Distin <>
    >.......when you say that "nearly all" that's in you
    > came from the outside, would you also say that nevertheless *you* have
    > responded in an individual way to that input - in a different way, say,
    > from how another individual in that same environment might have done?
    > This is a bit of a tangle, of course, because from the moment of
    > conception you have had environmental input, all of which has cascaded
    > forwards to influence your responses to future environmental input - but
    > is there, for you, an essential "you" that also has its input into your
    > responses?

    Kate, if I may intervene,

    At least for me there is a ' me'. The ' me ' I am talking about is and has been conditioned by past environmental input ( whatever that might be and taken in its broadest sense) and will be cascaded forward only due to those past ( and present) input and of how I responded to it; although I think that even future, yet to come reality environmental inputs do already exercise influence on the ' me' in the present. The ' me' responded in an individual way to changes, because there is no other ' me ' like me, not genetical nor memetical. Seen from the inside out, I do and I did put the ink in the inkpot in the way I responded to changes !



    =============================================================== 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 14 Apr 2005 - 20:09:20 GMT