Re: What are memes made of?

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Feb 10 2000 - 01:34:11 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: meaning in memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA21393 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 10 Feb 2000 01:32:07 GMT
    Message-Id: <200002100130.UAA08090@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:34:11 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: What are memes made of?
    In-reply-to: <B4C773C4.E6%heuvel@muc.de>
    References: <200002090221.VAA04860@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Date sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 19:44:07 +0100
    Subject: Re: What are memes made of?
    From: William van den Heuvel <heuvel@muc.de>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > William van den heuvel:
    > >> If you like to think in terms of "stances" then you could say
    > >> information as matter is the "physical stance", and information as
    > >> data is the "formal stance". But now I am tempted to suggest the
    > >> introduction of an additional stance; information as meaning, which
    > >> would be the "meaning stance".
    >
    >
    > Robin Faichney:
    > > The "meaning stance" is a great idea, but it's already been had: this is
    > > effectively the same as Dennett's "intentional stance" -- see his book of
    > > that name.
    >
    >
    > Unfortunately, I don't have much time to read books so I don't know if
    > Dennett gives a special meaning to 'intention'. But going by the common
    > usage of the word 'intention', I would be inclined to say that meaning comes
    > prior to intention in the sense that the intention seems to flows out of the
    > meaning. In my view, meaning implies significance, value and purpose all of
    > which give rise to an intention. If that view is correct then intention
    > would depend on meaning in which case the "meaning stance" comes prior to
    > the "intentional stance".
    >
    > So, if you like to bring in the "intentional stance" it would have to follow
    > the "meaning stance". Hence, we now have four stances:
    > 1.- the physical stance
    > 2.- the formal stance
    > 3.- the meaning stance
    > 4.- the intentional stance
    >
    Meaning and intention are co-primordial in the sense that there
    must be meaning differences for there to be selective intention, but
    selective intention is necessary to imbue particular meanings. For
    every intention, there must be both an intending applied to an
    intended, and an intender; for every meaning (noun) there must be
    both a meaning (verb) applied to a meant, and a meaner.
    >
    >
    > William van den Heuvel
    > heuvel@muc.de
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 : Thu Feb 10 2000 - 01:32:10 GMT