From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:11:39 BST
In a message dated 10/13/02 10:11:50 PM GMT Daylight Time,
wim.nusselder@antenna.nl writes:
> Dear ? (naming her/himself Squonk),
>
> You wrote 13/10 10:51 -0400:
> 'The main body of exploration in your posts appear to be memetic. Why not
> start using memes yourself as social patterns of value?'
>
> Genes are the static latch of the biological level. 'Meme' is too general
> for me: I need different terms for the static latches of the social and the
> intellectual level.
>
> Your tendency to choose from among the other contributors to this list one
> or more that you try to chase off by treating them disrespectfully and
> spending lots of e-mails on it irritates me. So does (to a lesser extent)
> your statement that your real name 'is of no consequence to anyone' while I
> have repeatedly stated that it IS of consequence to me. The coherence and
> consistency of the different postings of the same person is an important
> aspect of the intellectual pattern of values (the MoQ) that we are trying
> to
> build and maintain in this list. 'If every post of [yours] could be sent
> under a differing name' your contribution would be only background noise
> and
> distraction, as the all too frequent abuse (not only by you) of fellow
> contributors on this list. Is that the kind of obscurity you are happy to
> dissolve into? Imagine Pirsig writing 'Zen and the art ...', 'Lila', the
> SODV-paper, his annotations of 'Lila's Child' etc. all under different
> names, leaving us no certainty about it all having the same author... His
> MoQ would not have stood much of a chance, would it? Now his legacy is -in
> my experience- in danger of losing some of its chances of survival because
> of the noise on this list.
>
> Erin wrote 5/10 20:59 -0400 'You don't have to have a character.' to
> someone
> posting as 'the Pantaphobic', who also has the bad taste -in my experience-
> of not adressing anyone with or signing her/his postings. I DO want people
> I
> correspond with to have a character. I want to be able to demand personal
> integrity from them and to take them to task if their different postings
> are
> incoherend and inconsistent. Otherwise I feel we will not be able to build
> and maintain the MoQ as a viable intellectual pattern of values here.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
Dear Wim,
Horse does not sign his own name?
I have no idea who Horse is and i don't care; i do value his input and that
is enough for me.
Naming things, including people, is an unnecessary discrimination of patterns
and one that has the cultural problem of celebrity status.
I do not want celebrity status thank you.
As for 'chasing people off'? That is rather silly.
Intellectual patterns cannot be chased off in a forum without faces and no
geographic integrity.
As for my integrity? I feel so passionately about preserving the MOQ that i
should, if i could, chase one or two members of this forum to Hades and back.
As for memes?
Too general a term is it?
And one that does not discriminate?
Here is a suggestion for you:
Meme - Celebrity reinforcing ability to excel in creative imitation. May
coinciding with and reinforce genetic excellence.
Hypermeme: Ability for intellect to discriminate method producing memeplexes.
May reinforce celebrity and genetic excellence.
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:57 GMT