Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA01364 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:47:28 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:51:56 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002090202.VAA24320@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00021217152600.00510@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >[Robin wrote]
>> >> How many times do I have to repeat, I distinguish between physical and
>> >> intentional information, and claim that memes are composed of the former, WHILE
>> >> SAYING NOTHING ABOUT THE LATTER?
>> >>
>> >If you do not take meaning (and those who mean - us) into
>> >account, your attempt is bound to fail to categorize that which it
>> >intends to categorize. Memes cannot exist in a meaning-vacuum,
>> >and neither can an ontology of them.
>>
>> There's certainly a requirement for meaning, but its in the meta-system within
>> which we're discussing the foundations of memetics, not in the latter.
>>
>What is it do you think that memes communicate, anyway, if not
>meaning?
Why must they communicate (in that sense) anything?
>> >Just as genetic characteristics are enGENdered
>> >(replicated) through sexual reproduction, memes are reMEMbered
>> >(lodged in the MEMory) by means of communicative replication
>> >between intentionalities.
>>
>> Again I have to ask, sez who? If this was established, you'd obviously be
>> able to cite copious support. So why don't you?
>>
>Sez phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism, semiotics,
>genetic epistemology and a few other fields (IMAGINING and
>REMEMBERING, two books by Edward S. Casey...
<snip>
>Sebeok, just to cherry-pick a few of the references I am using in
>my own work).
Sorry, I do not believe these works support your assertion about memes. I'll
hazard a guess that what you're doing here is assuming the point at issue re
memes and meaning, then citing works that support the intentionality/meaning
connection. Of course I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.
>> (In case it's not obvious, the point with which I disagree is that
>> intentionalities are necessarily involved. I know of no reason to believe
>> that, and in fact, off hand, can't think of any argument that's ever been made
>> for it. Though I haven't yet read every article in the JoM archives.)
>>
>That's probably the sum total of your reading in the field, or any
>field close to it, and highlights one of your main difficulties. If
>intentionalities were NOT involved, why do we not observe rampant
>memetic behavior in the intentionalityless, such as animals?
What about birdsong? Where were you when this was previously discussed here?
Have you read The Meme Machine?
>> BTW, someone should probably tell you, on this list such issues have been
>> discussed at great length for years without much sign of a consensus being
>> reached. You seem to be using a concept of the meme -- meme AS concept,
>> in fact -- that's common elsewhere, such as on the virus list, but has little
>> support among those with a serious interest in the subject. Maybe you should
>> do some reading of the JoM, and reconsider the status of your knowledge of
>> memetics.
>>
>Your proselytizing interest in excluding intentionality, subjectivity,
>and self-conscious awareness may be serious to you and your Zen-
>Doctrine-of-No-Mind brethren, but not to many others here besides
>myself who have also disagreed with you on these very points in
>this very venue.
I think you're somewhat confused. I don't believe we've "met" on this
list prior to this particular discussion. To my recollection, we've crossed
swords only on virus. And I don't believe we've ever argued about memetics.
(And I have no interest in "excluding intentionality, subjectivity, and
self-conscious awareness", proselytizing or otherwise. Something I said at
some point triggered an abreaction in you, and you've projected your
pet ideological hates on to me ever since.)
>The extent of your desperation in this matter is
>only emphasized by your resorting to a transparently false
>rhetorical ploy in a failed and futile attempt to defend the
>undefendable.
I stand by every item in that paragraph (beginning "BTW"). I didn't even know
you were subscribed to this list until you responded to one of my messages
early in this discussion, and I still suspect you haven't been around here very
long, or you'd have a better idea of the state of the art in memetics.
>Life or Sim City are not memes to PC's (because nothing is
>anything to them); they are, however, memes in the self-
>consciously aware intentionalities of those who choose to program
>them onto their PC's, and were both constructed and
>communicated by other such self-consciously aware
>intentionalities.
Assertion is not argument. (Not that I'd say PC's without special programming
could host memes anyway -- obviously?)
-- Robin Faichney===============================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 Feb 14 2000 - 15:47:30 GMT