Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA01806 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:00:06 GMT Message-ID: <004901bf839e$f40fa280$6d4ba03f@default> From: "abyss" <abyss@megalink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <ECS10003011147A@imap.uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: new line: what's the point? Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:55:29 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Wave Patterns?
abyss
----- Original Message -----
From: "Soc Microlab 2" <A.Rousso@uea.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 6:10 AM
Subject: new line: what's the point?
> robin said:
>
> My point is this: given all the existing concepts, such as meaning, and
the whole semiotic toolbag, what
> purpose does the meme concept serve? What place is there for a "selfish"
replicator in a world of
> consciously communicating individual minds? I thought memetics was an
alternative scenario.
> Otherwise,why bother with memes at all?
>
> <snip>
>
> and I think I get where he's coming from at last. I think you're coming
from the whole Blackmore/self is an
> illusion side of things.The reason you don't want to talk in terms of
meaning is because you don't want to
> talk in terms of a meaner. You want to go beyond that and reduce it to
what might be called the atoms of
> meaning or culture. Well, good luck, because I don't think you're going to
get many takers. You're
> certainly right to question the purpose of the meme in a world that
already has semiotics et al. That's what
> every critic of memetics has said so far - what's the point? and my thesis
is trying to answer that. My
> simplest answer would be that it tries to square the findings of biology
with the findings of the social
> sciences (especially things like cognitive psychology), and that's why I
start with Dennett.
> If you're trying to do what Blackmore's doing, I'd say that, with the
exception of a few already
> converted Zen-types, you will have difficulty convincing people about that
version of memetics. I mean, in
> that sense, it's just another panacea that explains everything and thus
explains nothing. (Blackmore's arg
> that of course the self is an illusion because the memes want it that way
is rather circular and
> unenlightening).
> On the subject of Dennett, the reductionism quotes is an appeal against
the likes of Searle, who
> believe in what he calls original intentionality rather than derived
intentionality - that is, meaning just
> comes from the meaner (and in a Cartesian sense, this meaner just exists
and that's it) and it's not
> transparent in the way that Dennett (or you or I) want it to be. Dennett
claims (contra Searle) that
> meanings can be reduced, but to borrow another famous quote of his, that
merely means that they are
> explained NOT explained *away*. This still leaves the question of what
*level* memetics becomes a useful
> application, and I say, (after Dennett) that it is at the level of meaning
rather than below that. (see "who's
> afraid of reductionism?" in DDI for more on this).
> So I think we (Robin and I at least) will have to agree to differ on the
ontological constraints
> here and leave it at that. Nevertheless, I have benefitted greatly from
trying to explain my thoughts to you,
> so thank you. However, I think a new argument can emerge from the flames
of this one, exactly as Robin
> asks - What's the point of memetics?
> This is basically the question that I have to answer to get my PhD. I know
what my answer is,
> but what's everyone else's? Robin has declared that he thinks it's an
alternative to theories of meaning,
> but I know most of you feel that memetics is less ambitious than that, and
is merely an attempt to build a
> bridge between biology and culture. With that in mind, what IS the point
of memetics - why do we need it
> when we already have semantics, semiotics, sociology, critical theory and
so on. What has memetics to
> offer and how do we show it?
>
>
> anwers on a virtual postcard
>
> alex.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 17:00:13 GMT