You see what you are doing is whinging and whining. My last couple of posts have been calm and inquisitive, but you still insist on calling me a 'dick'. You have also avoided my questions and my debating points. This leads me to believe that you have no idea how to answer me. This is classic "methinks he doth protest too much" territory. Now go back to my previous post and deal with it, else don't bother.
On Jul 5, 5:03 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > Really, I have resorted to personal attacks (beyond saying you're > being a dick to me)? > > Instead of starting by reading it to see what I mean, you launch into > attack mode right off the bat. Instead of giving me some slack for > being something of an amateur and not involved in the discourse you > slate me. > > I think I am right that explaining humanity will eventually involve > acknowledging the role of two evolutionary processes or forces, > complexity theory, chaos theory, systems theory, feedback loops (and > maybe therefore synchronicity) and the like. > > Now, I don't think thats bad work for someone who had ended up in such > an anachronistic discipline as History. It's certainly worth more > than bollocks like Fukuyama. > > So how about we treat each other as fellow interested travellers > instead of being a dick? > > On 5 July, 15:36, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 5, 2:55 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well thanks for the list of personal presumptions on your part. > > > > You didn't answer the question. Is all the contemporary writing on > > > cultural evolution likewise redundent? > > > Only when it is reductionist; tries to crow-bar it into a single > > explanatory theory and when it ignores the specifics and > > particularity of cultural and social logic. > > > > I have tried to avoid getting personal. I know full well that I am > > > not arguing from authority. > > > You have done that twice already,by attempting to validate your theory > > with reference to others that have 'supported' it. > > > > I fully admit I haven't even read any of > > > the discourse on cultural evolution and that my ideas come from > > > disparate, accessible sources. > > > This is a serious error. The point is that we all know cultures > > evolve, decline, become extinct. But we also know that it is not the > > same as somatic evolution in that there is no genetic corollary. The > > thing is that we have been engaged in understanding and studying how > > and why societies grow and decline since Herodotus and we are well > > equipped to discourse on this through history, anthropology and > > related disciplines. CVT and memetics does not add to this. > > Its like trying to understand the journey using car mechanics. > > If you have something new, say so. > > > > You however have been a exceptional personal and deriding (yet you > > > have the balls to call me arrogant?), whilst all the while using > > > arguments that Blute calls 'old and tired' regarding the definition of > > > the memetic unit. > > > Demonstrate or describe the memetic unit! Until you have defined god > > you cannot expect anyone to validate it. > > If you have something different that is not 'old and tired' then type > > it in right here. > > > > Why are you being such a dick to me? > > > I think you need to read back on some of the postings. > > > > Ben > > > > On 4 July, 22:18, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your problem is that you think others around you are ignorant. > > > > Well, the fact is I am probably older than you, more qualified than > > > > you and better educated than you. > > > > I've been reading about cultural evolution (probably) since before you > > > > were born, and I've been there, done that, got the map, seen the book, > > > > watched the play and worn out the t-shirt on CVT and Memetics. > > > > > On Jul 4, 7:52 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Says the person who spent the first few posts arguing without even > > > > > having bothered to read it. > > > > > > I've just dipped into the vibrant, contemporary discourse on cultural > > > > > evolution. Is that all bollocks too because I'm finding a lot of what > > > > > i've written there.... > > > > > LIke I said above, people who have the big answer always tend to see > > > > their grand theory confirmed in many different places; whether they > > > > are religious , new age or just plain arrogant. > > > > > > On 4 July, 09:45, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Argumentum ad authoritatum does not work here. > > > > > > What works here is discussion on the points of the argument, and a > > > > > > defence of any critique. > > > > > > You have not really made that attempt very effectively. > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2:36 pm, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > At the end of the day, more distinguished people have expressed a > > > > > > > liking for it, Pierre Levy for one whos ideas it explands, than > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > who resort to personal, childish attacks instead of polite > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > Therefore I dont think your comments are going to lose me sleep, > > > > > > > though they have been informative in some ways so thanks for that. > > > > > > > > On 3 July, 14:33, grimeandreason <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > wow, clearly this aint the place for debate, just personal > > > > > > > > attacks and > > > > > > > > closed-mindedness. > > > > > > > > > On 3 July, 12:49, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Also, if you go to the library, ask for any copy paste > > > > > > > > > instruction, > > > > > > > > > because some of your links give a Page Not Found error. Come > > > > > > > > > on, get > > > > > > > > > lost > > > > > > > > > > On 3 jul, 07:35, grimeandreason <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I utterly disagree. Your argument are just as relative to > > > > > > > > > > genes > > > > > > > > > > (which cannot be defined as specific units) since the > > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > > between form and function is not based upon one-to-one but > > > > > > > > > > one-to-many > > > > > > > > > > and many-to-one (as they are with memes). Give me your > > > > > > > > > > email and i'll > > > > > > > > > > send you that paper and chapter from Marion Blute. I think > > > > > > > > > > she nails > > > > > > > > > > it. She also answered my question as to whether the > > > > > > > > > > terminology of > > > > > > > > > > memetics inspires unconstructive reactions. > > > > > > > > > > > Look, meme is just the terminology I use to conceptualise > > > > > > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > > > > evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > As for the rich and famous bollocks you could not be > > > > > > > > > > farther from the > > > > > > > > > > truth!!! I really couldnt give a rats ass if I die > > > > > > > > > > unknown, I've > > > > > > > > > > already got everything I need in the contentment I have > > > > > > > > > > found. This > > > > > > > > > > is simply a hobby. > > > > > > > > > > > Im really not obsessed by memes. Its just the terminology > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > > which I was introduced to the concept of cultural > > > > > > > > > > evolution. That we > > > > > > > > > > (body and mind) are the result of two co-evolutionary > > > > > > > > > > process is not > > > > > > > > > > trivial, it's fundamental. > > > > > > > > > > > As for trying to pin down a theory, why the hell not? In > > > > > > > > > > mathematics > > > > > > > > > > as well as reality, complexity theory has shown that nature > > > > > > > > > > produces > > > > > > > > > > complexity from recurring simplicity. Personally I believe > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > seeing human history and civilisation as anything other > > > > > > > > > > than that > > > > > > > > > > brings about all sorts of philosophical problems. > > > > > > > > > > > Lets not get personal shall we? > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 July, 00:58, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You are starting to remind me of a fundamentalist. All > > > > > > > > > > > you have to do > > > > > > > > > > > is read the bible and all will be revealed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A meme has no material corollary. Memes are everything, > > > > > > > > > > > which means > > > > > > > > > > > they are nothing. What is a meme? It might be the shape > > > > > > > > > > > of a big toe > > > > > > > > > > > on a statue, or the Declaration of Independence; it could > > > > > > > > > > > be a smiley > > > > > > > > > > > face :) or the way a person laces his shoes; it might be > > > > > > > > > > > capitalism > > > > > > > > > > > itself or a tiny part of the mechanism of trade; an > > > > > > > > > > > emotional state; a > > > > > > > > > > > word; a book; a bottle top design. There is no standard > > > > > > > > > > > means of > > > > > > > > > > > transmission, no standard means of mutation. > > > > > > > > > > > Al emetics says is that things that persist, will > > > > > > > > > > > persist. Big Deal! > > > > > > > > > > > It is completely useless as an idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 10:00 pm, grimeandreason > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is only a pure chance kind of evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A professor at Toronto has given me a proof copy of a > > > > > > > > > > > > chapter of a > > > > > > > > > > > > book being published by Cambridge University Press. > > > > > > > > > > > > Her name is > > > > > > > > > > > > Marion Blute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In it, she conclusively shows that the definition of > > > > > > > > > > > > meme is > > > > > > > > > > > > absolutely in no way more problematic than the attempts > > > > > > > > > > > > at defining > > > > > > > > > > > > 'gene' and can therefore not be dismissed a priori. > > > > > > > > > > > > She herself > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't use the phrase, instead talking of cultural > > > > > > > > > > > > transmission > > > > > > > > > > > > which, funnily enough, isn't instinctively shunned by > > > > > > > > > > > > people that > > > > > > > > > > > > instinctively shun it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > nominal, dont knock it till you read it. My > > > > > > > > > > > > conclusions also revolve > > > > > > > > > > > > around an expanding knowledge base as the basis for our > > > > > > > > > > > > cultural > > > > > > > > > > > > identities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 July, 17:00, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memes.... pseudo > > > > > > > > > > > > > science.....ideas....thoughts.....they CANNOT > > > > > > > > > > > > > REGENERATE THEMSELVES (EMPHASIS ON THE > > > > > > > > > > > > > THEMSELVES)....hence, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > CANNOT EVOLVE.....look elsewhere for your answer... > > > > > > > > > > > > > me, I like > > > > > > > > > > > > > nominalism.... words , they change their meaning or > > > > > > > > > > > > > just become new > > > > > > > > > > > > > ones as the "Knowledge Base" of the people who use > > > > > > > > > > > > > them expands (or > > > > > > > > > > > > > diminishes)....but it's all haphazard..... not > > > > > > > > > > > > > "evolutionary"... > > > > > > > > > > > > > well , maybe evolutionary but in the "pure chance" > > > > > > > > > > > > > sort of way... > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
