Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 01:56:43 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA05947 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:54:48 GMT
    Message-Id: <200003030152.UAA03283@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net>
    From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:56:43 -0600
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
    In-reply-to: <00030216110501.03748@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: new line: what's the point?
    Date sent: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:00:18 +0000
    Send 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?
    >
    Not if it involves the excision of meaning (semantics), intention or
    selfawareness, but I do not believe it does. There is "good"
    reductionism (which eliminates the inessential a la Occam's Razor)
    and "bad" reductionism (which eliminates essential components of
    the system it purports to schematize and therefore ends up with a
    schema which is distorted to the point of useless nonrelationality
    to that which it purports to represent). Mechanistic can be
    atomistic (which cannot grasp synergistically emergent qualities)
    or holistic (which can grasp them). In my opinion, your tack is a
    "bad" reductionism which attempts the identical atomistic fallacy
    which prevented Shakyamuni from apprehending the self, and
    therefore misrepresents the memetics it purports to schematize.
    There is no "deux" in my view, machine or otherwise, just the
    emergence of multiple individual signifying and intentional
    subjectivities (us mainly), a myriad of unique and similar but not
    identical fitness landscapes in which memetic selection, mutation
    and evolution can find cognitive environmental niches to transpire.
    P. S. The science and the philosophy are on my side; your karma
    IS your dogma.
    > --
    > 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 : Fri Mar 03 2000 - 01:54:54 GMT