Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09549 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 8 May 2000 13:43:50 +0100 Message-ID: <39166FEE.6B47C9A5@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 08:42:38 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener References: <20000507225559.AAA12871@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.101]> <008b01bfb94d$30d44020$03000004@r2z3h3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
To answer this question, why not start out with some actual experiments among
your friends? See if you can try using the word for a few weeks and see if it
sticks. I will bet you that if you keep using it for months, it will still feel
too awkward to continue to use in a convincing way. If my prediction comes true,
you will then have an interesting line of research - which is, why do synthetic
words never stick (with partial exception of acronyms). Then you might try out
my hypothesis that new words generally come into existence through metaphorical
use of preexisting words.
At any rate, why not try the experiment.
Tyger wrote:
> Well said Wade,
> that is the issue with verbal representations that we cannot escape their
> memory though we may desire to negate their very existence. how does one say
> " I would never use eIe" whilst refraining from using eIe. (and remaining
> simple)
>
> Why Wade? why would you never use eIe. pls explain
> is it inneficient? is it wrong? is it of a creed you do not accept? does the
> sound of it makes one cringe? as I work with diverse language constructs, I
> would be happy to understand your prompt rejection in a deeper manner. we,
> in the media business have a tendency to use memetic constructs in an
> intuitive manner, words for us are playful operations meant to convey
> certain facilitation of communication, but eIe understand not all see it
> that way.
> As I understand memetics to be a realm of the human mind, it cannot be that
> a rejection (or acceptance) of a certain representation of meaning carries
> no implications whatsoever.
>
> best,
> Tyger
> Tyger@SilkenTiger.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
> To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
>
> > Tyger made this comment not too long ago --
> >
> > >comments, questions , suggestions, are more than welcome.
> >
> > I would never use eIe.
> >
> > - Wade
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > 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 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 : Mon May 08 2000 - 13:44:48 BST