RE: Morphogenetic fields and memes

From: Bruce Jones (BruceJ@nwths.com)
Date: Mon Jan 24 2000 - 14:06:14 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Morphogenetic fields and memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA07140 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:02:59 GMT
    Message-ID: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C30737B@NWTH-EXCHANGE>
    From: Bruce  Jones <BruceJ@nwths.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: RE: Morphogenetic fields and memes
    Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:06:14 -0600
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Kenneth:

    Evidentially not as new as some of us.

    Let me try to restate what you have stated/asked.

    Change is promulgated by a redefinition, refinement, and combination of old
    with new.

    In other words.... A thought, philosophy, or cultural shift in what is
    acceptable or deemed by the whole as required, is brought about by a
    reexamination of what has been. Change is the natural and expected result
    of social, environmental, predatory, and technological pressure. Therefore
    any paradigm shift is a result of a mimetic shift. To believe and act today
    as was believed and acted 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago can not be done
    because of 'evolutionary' shifts in thought, thought processes, ideologies,
    and cultural advances.

    Is this what you asked/said?

    Bruce W. Jones

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Kenneth Van Oost [SMTP:Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be]
    > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 5:13 AM
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Morphogenetic fields and memes
    >
    > Hi folks! I am a new kid on the block in the search into memetics.
    > I can't stop wondering how much the theory about morphogenetic fields
    > coincide,
    > in some sense,with what we should call meme-complexes.
    > In my point of view they are comparable and exchangeble_the hypothesis of
    > formative causation,(see Rupert Sheldrake),that is the hypothesis that
    > organisms or morphic units at all levels of complexity are organized by
    > morphic fields,which are themselves influenced and stabilized by morphic
    > resonance from all previous simular morphic units could then easily become
    > the hypothesis that organisms or memetic individuals at all levels of
    > increasing complexity are organized/selected/  
    > cumulated/regulated/structurated/...by meme-complexes,which are themselves
    > [already imitations by which a selection-process evolves,and] influnced
    > and stabilizes by memetic-lineges from (all) previous simular
    > memetic-profiles.
    >  
    > It may be better understandeble in following clarifications_a human
    > organism who
    > is a member of a culture must acquire the standards/knowlegde base and
    > expe-
    > rience_these things of a particular discipline are in my opinion,then
    > morphogenetic
    > fields_all what follows are memes.
    > In other words:-morphic resonance triggers thought-forms which boottrap in
    > existence memes,which become meme-complexes or paradigms which in their
    > turn form a new platform/pattern for the occurance of morphic resonance,or
    > in some sense to selection,variation and eventually to new ideas/memes and
    > meme-
    > complexes.
    > Is there anyone out there to discuss this further!?

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 24 2000 - 14:03:00 GMT