Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 16:00:18 GMT

  • Next message: Robert Logan: "Re: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA04783 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:18:17 GMT
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
    Organization: Reborn Technology
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
    Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:00:18 +0000
    X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21]
    Content-Type: text/plain
    References: <200003012008.PAA10524@mail3.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Message-Id: <00030216110501.03748@faichney>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    >> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote:
    >> >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?
    >> >
    >Memetics and semiotics, as I noted before, are complementary in
    >the sense that semiotics is synchronic, describing the static and
    >fixed signifier-signifying-signified-code-carrier-message system, like
    >a sharp snapshot, while memetics is diachronic, describing the
    >evolution, transmission/reception/replication and mutation of the
    >messages contained in such encoded messages, like a
    >(somewhat) blurry movie. Obviously, this being my position, your
    >charge of neochristian fundamentalism is absurd (BTW, I'm pagan
    >in outlook due to their ecological and feminist leanings, but not
    >fundie about it).

    I didn't say you were a "neochristian fundamentalist" (whatever that is), I
    said you take the same line on memetics that creationists take on genetics.
    Actually, that's not true, because they invoke a deus ex machina to "explain"
    the origin, or design, of genes, whereas you invoke a deus in machina to
    "explain" the selection of memes. But your tactic is about as scientific as
    their's. Or else, answer this: do you or don't you deny the possibility of
    mechanistic memetic explanations?

    --
    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 16:18:50 GMT