Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA02565 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:35:10 GMT Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:33:36 -0500 From: Robert Logan <logan@physics.utoronto.ca> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: objections to "memes" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20000319174129.01158910@popmail.mcs.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.10.10003210753490.9288066-100000@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Aaron - I must admit the dialogue that followed by posting on the
objections to "memes" has been largely lost on me. It seems that I have
wandered inadvertently into a terminology controversy. For me at this
early stage in my understanding of memes or thought contagion the
subtleties are lost on me.
I am drawn to the "meme" meme because it is an
idea that helps me to understand a number of phenomena, particularly the
evolution of language and the effects of media, a field I have been
engaged in since 1974 when I first collaborated with Marshall McLuhan.
In my two major works since then, The Alphabet Effect (Wm Morrow, NY,
1986) and the Fifth Langauge (Stoddart, Toronto, 1995) I have tried to
understand the way in which language, media and ideas interact with each
other, hence, my fascination with memetics. IN the Kuhnian sense I believe
that Dawkins work, his throw away chapter on memes, represents a form of
revolutionary science or put another way Dawkins has created a paradigm
shift. I am interested in articulating that paradigm and applying it to
the area of communications and linguistics that I have been working on for
the past 26 years. BTW articulating a paradigm in the sense of Kuhn and
replicating a meme in the sense of Dawkins seem parallel to me.
It was certainly fortuitous coincidence that you used the examples of
quarks to illustrate your ideas. I was introduced to the concept of quarks
by Gell Mann when he visited MIT for a semester shortly after his paper
introducing the concept. I have made use of quarks in my particle threory
research. My PHD thesis concerned a phenomenological analysis of high
energy scattering in which I showed that the exchange of virtual particles
were dominated by Regee poles. I later combined the Regge idea with the
quark idea and worked on the Regee quark model. For me quarks might or
might not exist but using them in a model helped to explain many of the
regularities of high energy scattering. All we know for sure is that SU(3)
symmetry holds and that one can explain that in terms of quarks. Whether
quarks are a reality or a theoretical construct is a philosophical
question that science can not address. The quark model was useful because
it made predictions, the only criteria for the usefulness of a scientific
concept.
I believe the question we must address is whether or not memes make
predictions that can be experimentally tested. I am just at the beginning
of my studies of this fascinating field. I have bought the many books on
this subject which have recently appeared including yours. I have now as a
result of this dialogue read the first chapter of your book and must
congratulate you for your scientific approach to the subject. You make
many cogent observations in your book and I must confess your use of
"cognitive advantage" was not lsot on me. Your thoughts are contagious by
virtue of your "cognitive advantage"
I do not know if I have added to the dialogue but felt it was incumbent
upon me to respond to your thoughtful response to my original posting. I
look forward to collaborating with you through the list. BTW are there any
memetic conferences this summer in North America or Europe for that
matter? I would be obliged to anyone who can provide me with information.
I am working on a paper to reinterpret my work in linguistics and
communications in terms of memes or thought contagion, which I can see
already after only reading one chapter will draw upon your book. When it
is completed I will send you a copy. BTW what are the rules about posting
papers to the list. PLease provide me with some guidance. For example
there is a section in the Fifth Langauge which is memetic-like which I
would like to share and get some feedback on. - Please advise.
Thank you again for your thoughtful response to my original posting.
Bob Logan
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Aaron Lynch wrote:
> At 10:18 PM 3/19/00 +0100, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> >
> >----- 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
>
> Thanks, Kenneth.
>
> Regardless of all the ways that others have been using the term "meme," I
> agree that my own work on evolutionary epidemiology of ideas (which I have
> been calling "memetics") is far more emotionally loaded than quark theory.
> However, that very emotional loading has caused all sorts of people with
> various evolution of culture theories to insist that various other things
> should also be called "memes." In physics, when a concept for "gluon" was
> needed in addition to "quark," no one fought to simply expand or modify the
> meaning of quark. They did not have the emotional investment to lead them
> to do so. With cultural replicators (or non-replicators, another
> terminological dispute), we do not see the relatively dispassionate ability
> to invent separate words for drastically different kinds of entities.
> People afraid of being ignored or left out all want to pile their meanings
> onto the word "meme" until the word collapses under the weight of it all.
> The word had apparently already collapsed to a level I and others consider
> to be scientifically useless by the time of the OED action of 1997.
> Assuming that you are a dispassionate scientist concerned with the
> development of strong theoretical paradigms rather than terminological
> squabbles, it should not matter to you in the least whether I use the term
> "meme" in future works.
>
> --Aaron Lynch
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 13:35:29 GMT