Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA03783 (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 23:47:42 GMT Message-Id: <200002142346.SAA27937@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:49:54 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119 In-reply-to: <00021217152600.00510@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #119
Date sent: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:51:56 +0000
Send 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?
>
Well then, what are people diong when they talk and listen, if not
communicating? And what are they using for this purpose, if not
meaning-bearing symbols, which, if subsequently repeated to
another (this is called a subset), are ipso facto memes?
>
> >> >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.
>
Consider yourself corrected, as you are wrong, and have to
assume because it's glaringly obvious you have not read any of the
works I cited (or, for that matter, much of anything).
>
> >> (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?
>
Blackmore has been roundly criticized for her Buddhist tendencies
in the book; the criticized sections are probably your only available
references to attempt to support your Zen contentions. Birdsong is
circumscribed by instinct, unlike memes, which cannot evolve
unless choice, an intentional function, furnishes a ground from
which selection may occur.
>
> >> 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.)
>
Your recollection is flawed; check the archives, where you heavily
campaigned for the contention that there is no such creature as a
self, until I conclusively refuted the position.
>
> >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.
>
I have been on this list for two (count-em; two) years, and if left up
to you and your Eastern-meme prejudices, memetics would be
relegated to a sorry state indeed.
>
> >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?)
>
In that case, you have done nothing but assert; it is I who have
furnished reams of support for my positions.
> --
> 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 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 - 23:47:44 GMT