dammit, i posted a long-ass reply at work but it doesnt seem to have posted.
Short version: If you read the thing in the first place you would understand that your critique thus far is baseless. Your argument about catagorisation is nonsense in the face of chaos and complex systems. I've shown a way to explain the humanities via simple axioms, complexity from simplicity. Try reading it first, then perhaps your critique might be relevant. Thanks. On 30 June, 11:44, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 29, 11:35 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Try reading the thesis first. You mistake the medium for the content. > > > Memetic evolution is the basis of our conscious selves, the reason for > > civilisation. > > Complete rubbish. Memetics tells you the mechanism only. To understand > human history you need to engage with the particularities and cultural > logic coded in the 'meme'. The main problem with that is there is no > identifiable material component that is equivalent to a meme. > Basically there is nothing different between what you call a meme and > normal people for centuries have called an Idea. Ideas change each > time they are encountered by each new person. This is what meme- > believers call mutation. Its what normal people call interpretation. > > > > > Plus, you can say a hell of a lot, indeed everything there is to say, > > about the Mona Lisa if you speak of all the memes that contributed to > > its creation, both the objective and the expression of the subjective > > (language consists of memes too...) > > Name one single identifiable meme and its materialist corollary that > is associated with the Mona Lisa! > The fact is there is no such things as memes, they are nothing more > than a historically situated article of faith by evolutionary > psychology and its associated pseudo-sciences. > There are no memes. Prove otherwise! > > > > > On 29 June, 21:05, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The basic problem with memes as history is that it is like trying to > > > understand the building, its uses and the people in it from the type > > > of brick it is constructed with. You cannot say anything meaningful > > > about the Mona Lisa from a chemical analysis of the paint. > > > > On Jun 22, 2:24 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I have hi hopes for you lot since I have found that the more > > > > contemporary the thinking, the more likely they are to get my idea so > > > > here goes... > > > > > Its more than just history, its identity, the self, everything > > > > humanities. Its universal, it comes down to simple axioms and is > > > > based on mere physical laws like cause and effect. > > > > > I'd really appreciate feedback. A knowledge of memetics means you're > > > > halfway there as it is. If I show it to a historian, the cognitive > > > > science baffles them, and if I show it to science minded people they > > > > dont like committing to the big picture implications. > > > > > Its > > > > athttp://sites.google.com/site/grimeandreason/memetics/we-are-what-we-t... > > > > or, because you can't comment there (though you can see the matrix in > > > > the appendix which blogger couldn't handle), it's also on my > > > > blog,www.grimeandreason.blogspot.comunderthe20/6/2010entry. > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Ben -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
