Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA29877 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:34:08 GMT Message-ID: <010a01c1b0bd$3f3303e0$3e03aace@oemcomputer> From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <20020208125054.4716F1FD47@camail.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Words and memes Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:25:33 -0900 Organization: Prodigy Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> >> Very little about nature is blind, even in any real sense.
> >Why am I thinking of exactly the opposite?
> Which would be- "Very little about the unnatural is blind, even in any
> real sense."
What I meant to say was:
Very little about nature is not blind, even in any real sense.
Only some species of living creatures enjoy the sense of sight.
But I guess you mean it in a more metaphorical sense.
Even so, I would disagree too as it is hard
to maintain I think that spontaneous processes in nature are somehow
self-guided. Therefore, please explain what you mean here Wade.
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 : Fri Feb 08 2002 - 15:46:07 GMT