Re: objections to "memes"

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Mar 19 2000 - 21:18:18 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: objections to memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA27169 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:54:39 GMT
    Message-ID: <002601bf91e8$a5f68520$5c0bbed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <20000317205517.17364.qmail@nw175.netaddress.usa.net><3.0.1.32.20000318130035.011d943c@popmail.mcs.net> <3.0.1.32.20000319141848.007656f8@popmail.mcs.net>
    Subject: Re: objections to "memes"
    Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:18:18 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 9:18 PM
    Subject: Re: objections to "memes"
    > >
    > >
    > >Aaron Lynch wrote
    (SNIP)
    >
    > I should point out that I have also been discussing the terminology
    problem
    > without using analogies to other sciences since at least 1997. Many people
    > who have broad science educations will have learned their standards of
    > terminological clarity from their overall exposure to sciences. Thus it
    > makes sense to point out why "meme" has run into more trouble than new
    > terms introduced to express new theories in other fields. Both quantum
    > chromodynamics and the word "quark" were far more widely accepted among
    > both scientists and lay people when "quark" as a particle name was itself
    > 24 years old back in 1987.

    <Aaron,with all do respect,you of all people should at least understand that
    memes,taken in a wider view is more treatening stuff than quark-theory.
    Memes and meme-theory are directly involved with our all day life,quarks
    also,but they don't control us like memes do.People are scared to know that
    they are not in control,they feel treatened when their ideas are taking
    over.
    "Memes" ran into trouble,as I wrote it in my last entry,just a few minutes
    ago,
    because people don't see practical applications.We need to focus more on
    that.

    Regards,

    Kenneth

    ===============================================================
    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 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 20:54:48 GMT