Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA20250 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 29 Nov 2001 02:24:13 GMT Subject: Re: circular logic Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:19:11 -0500 x-sender: email@example.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011129021911.AAA11349@firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi Joe Dees -
>Not only does it have intention, but that intention plays a part in
>selection the further memetic selection with which it engages its ideosphere.
Intention is often laid aside, as in "should've's". And intentions are
laid down in laws that are barely enforced much less adhered to.
And often, intentions produce babies, although, selection (from a very
good olfactory experiment where women chose 'good mates') might prefer a
good whiff first, and neglect the well-intentioned, but off-smelling,
choice of the matchmaker.
Chauffers get theirs.
Intention remains, for me, problematic.
And yet, I've stood on principle several times, with very definite
negative outcomes, both to my pocketbook and my esteem, in this culture.
And, I fully intended to fall in love, and, a few times, I have.
Wishes and hopes.
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 2b29 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 02:30:19 GMT