From: Kate Distin (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 14 Apr 2005 - 20:14:26 GMT
Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kate Distin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>.......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
> 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 !
I agree totally with you - though I couldn't have put it so well! I was
curious whether Chris sees things this way too, or whether for him it
really is a tabula rasa - because I was enjoying his boundary-pushing
and wondered how far it went.
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 14 Apr 2005 - 20:31:51 GMT