Hi DMB, inserted below ... On 5/18/07, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian said: > Meme is just a word I use, loaded with possible misrepresented connotations, > but a private language is just not possible, I use it and look out for the > misunderstandings and misrepresentations. > > dmb says: > Yea, I know. Meme is just a word you use. Like "social darwinism", > "intelligent design","suspension of disbelief" and other terms in common > currency, you use words without understanding what they really mean, where > they come from, what they imply.
[IG] "really mean" ? Interesting concept. Words mean what we understand they mean when we use them in discourse. I "mock" definitions only where people assume that asserting them somehow changes that fact. Clearly, starting from scratch - in the absence of a human dialogue - a dictionary definition is a good starting point if you come across a term whose usage you do not know. As you point out without etymological knowldege, a whole lot of baggage can be lost in a definition anyway, and implications of the user or receiver can be wildly irrelevant or misunderstood. I never use a word I don't understand (the way I understand it) - when I ask someone else what they mean by the same term, I'm not indicating that I don't know what it means (to me) or that I don't have access to dictionaries; I'm suspecting there may be a misunderstanding based on those other non definitional meanings implied by the baggage and context. The reason I jibe at people who haul out definitions in response to such questions - I'm asking for dialogue - I already have links to Websters, Wikipedia and OneLink etc. I prefer humans to dictionaries. > And when somebody like me complains about > this abuse of meaning, you attack the dictionary or mock the notion of > definition. This is what makes you the King. (of drivel) [IG] Fine, if you see me "abuse" a meaning (in your opinion) please continue to say so - it will always be accidental (or incidental if I'm playing rhetorical games) - but please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know where to find a dictionary definition. > > Or so it seems to me. If there is a way to make the MOQ compatible with the > theory of memes, it would surprize me. I thought the MOQ replaced the > mechanized view of evolution in favor a volitional one even at the > biological level. So to then transfer darwinian mechanisms to the evolution > of language seems to reverse the correction and double the error. What could > be worse than a mechanistic, materialistic theory of meaning? Isn't "Meme" > exactly the kind of absurdity we get when we try to explain culture in terms > of material and mechanical operations? I think so. [IG] Agreed. No brainer again. Name me one idiot who would even attempt to do so. And in fact, that's why we're having this discussion. You have this "mechanistic" baggage associated with memes (and genes I guess). I don't deny the mechanisms, they're real enough, in their place. But equally I do not say such mechanisms are "the explanation" for the whole emergent behaviour across the MoQ levels ... the point in the other paragraph you didn't quote from. (There is s deeper misunderstanding about the use of terms like causation and explanation. I can use a mechanism as "part of" my explanation of a whole, without suggesting any mechanistic cause of the whole.) > > But maybe this is where the misunderstandings and misrepresentions are > factored in and maybe they are mine rather than yours. I don't know. You > tell me. [IG] Clearly such differences in meaning are in both of us - hence the need for dialogue. I don't "blame" you for misunderstanding me - I seek to understand the misunderstanding and reduce it. > > dmb > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live > Hotmail. > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
