RE: meaning in memetics

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2000 - 00:39:46 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: meaning in memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA11902 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:40:48 GMT
    Subject: RE: meaning in memetics
    Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:39:46 -0500
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <20000218004525.AAA17009@camail2.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.132]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Richard Brodie made this comment not too long ago --

    >I don't know the difference between "explain," which you claim memetics
    >cannot do, and "analyze usefully," which you claim it can.

    Explain, as in define the mechanism. Analyze, as in create data for
    evaluation.

    [Explain- To offer reasons for or a cause of; justify.]

    [Analyze- To separate into parts for study.]

    >Am I to assume you feel the same lack of interest in understanding the
    >spread of religion, business, government, and popular culture?

    No, you are not to assume that. I don't quibble about the fact such
    things spread- I quibble about the need for examining the content
    therein. There _is_ no content, per se, in a chain letter- it's very
    irrelevance to anything else is its point, if it has one at all, for
    anyone, for any reason.

    I do quibble about the need to examine chain letters as forensic
    evidence, because I don't see any value in doing so.

    (BTW, the copy of your book in the Law School Library is taken out. The
    copy in the Widener is not....)

    ><< Culture is always and forever an adaptation.>>
    >
    >A genetic adaptation?

    No. An adaptation of genetically determined and developed behaviors, much
    as in the way you must step over a log that has just hindered your path
    where there was no log before. The fact that you walk is genetic. The
    fact that you must overstep the log (or walk around it) to proceed is
    adaptive.

    After all, very little has happened genetically to the human over the
    last few hundreds of thousands of years.

    It is the link between behavior and consciousness that memetics may serve
    as analyzation tool. But looking at the log and the fact one is walking
    (i.e. counting chain letters or cataloguing their 'content') is specious.
    Stepping over or around it is not.

    It is within memetics to find and explain the moment when one throws that
    chain letter into the trash where it belongs, or wastes the time to
    bother others with it.

    Memetics should be about the bothering, not about the blather.

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 : Fri Feb 18 2000 - 00:40:51 GMT