Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA07516 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:48 GMT Message-Id: <200002281742.MAA29565@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:44:20 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What are memes made of? In-reply-to: <00022615560900.00384@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: What are memes made of?
Date sent: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:50:01 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> >Lloyd Robertson made this comment not too long ago --
> >
> >>Should wider ties become fashion again, what is the meaning in that? I
> >>suppose, if you define memetics narrowly, fashion in clothing has little to
> >>do with memetics. But it is clearly part of culture and the wearers of
> >>wider ties are communicating something to others who observe them. I still
> >>fail to see a neat distinction between that and birdsong for those species
> >>whose songs are variant and dependant on imitation.
> >
> >And, thus, perhaps, our dilemma- should birdsong be considered memetic,
> >there is practically no point to memetics- for birdsong is clearly
> >explained through genetics and developed behaviors, and thus human
> >culture might also be- reduced to that, even. Blackmore's insistence upon
> >calling birdsong memetic is a fatal mistake, IMHO, to the pursuit of
> >memetics.
>
> You assume that memetics needs to provide an explanation that can be provided in
> no other way, but I don't think that's so. It provides a novel way of
> looking at culture, which has some advantages and some disadvantages, and as
> long as it is not actually invalidated, I think that's enough. What do others
> think about this?
>
Genetics can not inform us about culture, for genetics is natural,
not cultural. Genetically based behavior is innately circumscribed,
and cannot freely develop beyond the genetic shackles which
imprison it into a small subset of otherwise possible behaviors; it is
by nature closed, until the advent of self-conscious awareness,
which was genetics actually overthrowing itself by creating a
species designed to transcend its own natural programming, and
be capable of an open-ended cognitive development circumscribing
a virtual infinitude of possible behaviors. This previously
nonexistent infinitude has become the new evolutionary
environment in which memes are received, mutate and evolve, and
from which replicating efforts are launched, the successful of which
comprise our ever-changing culture. Memetics has to do with
mutable cognitive behavior rather than fixed innate behavior, and as
such has an immediately and environmentally changeable meaning
content in addition to a static being content circumscribed by a
small number of unchanging (except in the VERY long term)
alternatives.
> --
> 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 28 2000 - 17:41:54 GMT