RE: memetics-digest V1 #130

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2000 - 19:09:25 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Accidence and Inadvertance"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA11281 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:07:14 GMT
    Message-Id: <200002171906.OAA11617@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:09:25 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: RE: memetics-digest V1 #130
    In-reply-to: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEDJEGAA.richard@brodietech.com>
    References: <200002171759.MAA29752@mail5.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
    

    From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: memetics-digest V1 #130
    Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:22:07 -0800
    Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > One major quibble:
    >
    > Joe Dees wrote:
    >
    > <<nor can it be
    > denied that the purpose of a message (why we send them) is to
    > convey meaning>>
    >
    > It certainly can be denied. From the message's point of view, its purpose is
    > to replicate itself. That is the basis of the memetics model. You can't be
    > implying that all our behavior is done out of conscious choice, can you?
    >
    I can deny that there is such a thing as a meme's point of view at
    all; they replicate, but not intentionally - they replicate blindly. We,
    who do have points of view, do send messages to convey
    meaning, or we do not send them ("send" implying an intentional
    action on our parts - inadvertant or accidental messages/signals,
    not consciously chosen, may behaviorally originate/emanate from
    us, but it was not our intention to "send" them). What other reason
    than to convey a meaning to others could we possibly have for
    sending them messages?
    >
    > <<Of course, if you
    > deconstruct a system into its component parts, you destroy the
    > complex and dynamic recursive interrelations from which self may
    > emerge; it's kinda like demolishing a building and studying it brick
    > by brick to ascertain that there were never walls or ceiling.>>
    >
    > Well said.
    >
    Thank you (and for all your compliments recently).
    >
    > Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 17 2000 - 19:07:17 GMT