Gee, Tad, can I have hug, too?
>Lesson #4 was build around a very deadly virus: "honest effort and
>individual accomplishment is worthless" put under a microscope by David R.
>Depreciating achievements of other people, who often devote their entire
>lives to work on an important idea is one of the methods loosers try to
>raise their self-esteem and poison others. It is non-productive and
>vicious. It deserves a cold look on how it works, and how to recognize it.
Not everyone sees the world from your perspective. By saying "cold look"
you mean "a look through my eyes". Isn't that also an attempt at
manipulation? You're just diving to a deeper level of context.
>There is no need for the people who
>recognise their words to defend themselves. It is an invitation to discuss
>the problem, and not the person. I suggest to use a useful mantra: "I don't
>care who said it" when responding to this thread.
Bullshit. My words are my business. If you want to discuss the viewpoint
with me I'm interested. But your glosses and pop-psychology analysis of my
motivations are unwelcome. I can't stop you but, to the extent I have the
time and energy, I can refute your attempts to twist my words to serve your
purposes. Like many people here you seem to be unwilling to accept some
things "at face value" which is a WEAKNESS of memetics, not a strength...it
completly halts communication.
I do care what I said. It may be obsolete today, but I trace the
continuity of my dynamic perception through such statements. I do take
such abuse of this forum personally. You were being intentionally
belligerent and now telling me I'm being instructed?
Lesson #13
"I know this might look like you're being screwed from YOUR limited
perspective, but it really is for your own good." is a lie.
>When I look again at the examples -- without further explanations -- (please
>pretend it was XYZ who wrote the quotes and look at them again) they seem to
>fit my "recipes" quite well. I could have used examples of other people
>from this list as well, the problem is still the same.
I'm glad to see you have continuity of perception over the course of a few
days. I don't care if you submitted it to the editorial board of Social
Text; if you want to know what I meant you are welcome to ask me. The
whole passage above had a significant content of zero.
>When I read your explanations, I agree, I might have been to harsh on you.
>I am sorry. If you did not mean to depreciate Dawkins achievement by
>calling it a "bastard child" -- good for you, if you did -- only you know it.
Gee, Tad thanks. Great pimp psycology. You slap me around and then say
"but you know I really love you". Surprised I'm skeptical?
>Talking about Dawkins. On the cover of Aaron Lynch's, 1996, book he says:
>"When I get down to writing 'The Selfish Meme', Aaron Lynch's admirable
>'Thought Contagion' will undoubtedly be a prime source-book for intriguing
>examples and penetrating analyses."
AND? Do you know how the publishing industry works? Once a book is to be
published the editor send pre-prints to a number of reviewers/readers
specifically so they can say such pithy things and make you feel that the
book in your hand is as good as the one they are alluding to. For someone
priding themeselves on being able to figure out the motivations of people
you seem remakably susceptible to basic advertizing.
I continue to be offended, moreso now that you're telling me that by using
my statemtent as an example you weren't talking about "me" personally? Who
were you talking about?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------