At Tue, 09 Feb 1999 15:22:48 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Is it possible to simply make a restatement, ie. one that does not change the
>semantic values of the words contained within it ?
>
>Craig
No, because that would mean absolute coincidence between two distinct symbol strings, and such a thing is ideal, not real (Doh!). However, it's probably within quasi-Heisenbergian similimits.
>I think, therefor I am changing
>
>joe dees wrote:
>
>> At Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:44:17 -0800, you wrote:
>> >
>> >Man, another Level-3er joining the list. Is this snowballing or what?
>> >
>> >Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/
>> >Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme"
>> >http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
>> >Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at
>> >http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
>> >Of Craig Dolan-Betney
>> >Sent: Monday, February 8, 1999 7:50 PM
>> >To: virus@lucifer.com
>> >Subject: virus: Reality (ref's to "truth at all costs" + "GBoA"
>> >
>> >
>> >Please be patient as this is my first time.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that everyone has their own concept of reality (their
>> >meme set), and most if not all want to believe this to be closer to the
>> >absolute reality (the truth) than anybody else's. I find myself enjoying
>> >CoV because it's members are people who have embraced this concept (or
>> >meme complex) into their own meme set and therefor are willing to learn
>> >other peoples memes if this brings them closer to the truth.
>> >
>> >The problem everyone faces is how to be objective with their meme set
>> >since it is the mechanism through which we try to be objective, i.e.
>> >how to think about a meme without the memes that are active within that
>> >area of your meme set affecting you.
>> >
>> >Any "bible" is presented to its users as an ideal model for their meme
>> >set (it's memes claim to represent "the truth"). If CoV was to produce a
>> >"bible" I would insist on being open for peer review and any publishing
>> >being version numbered to emphasize the point that "the truth" is not
>> >yet known (and may never be) though we try to get closer with each
>> >evolution in our thinking.
>>
>> Is't this simply a restatement of the scientific enterprise?
>>
>> >from Craig
>> >
>> >You cannot learn the truth without unlearning the untruth
>> >If you believe you know the truth, I don't trust you, you would have to
>> >know everything.
>> >If you think you may know some of the truth I'm willing to reason with
>> >you.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Joe E. Dees
>> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
>> Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
>> http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher