RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Tue May 09 2000 - 13:23:18 BST

  • Next message: Chuck Palson: "Re: Central Questions of Memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14315 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 9 May 2000 13:25:09 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB159@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
    Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:23:18 +0100 
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    This debate is getting very interesting for a number of reasons. First, the
    range of responses from this group show how our existing meme-centres treat
    new memes trying to burrow their way into us- from outright rejection, to
    humour, to analytical interest. I'm actually finding my positioning on the
    development of this term hardening ever further against it- the more I see
    you using the term, the less I think it's a useful one.

    Let's go back to first principles, and think about meme- a new word which
    has undoubtedly found a niche to exploit. I've said before that meme is
    easy to write, read and say (and one could possibly add is fun to say?), but
    let us also remember Dawkins coining of the phrase, where he gives the roots
    of the term- mimesis, and acknowledges its closeness to the French word meme
    (apology, no accent on my e-mail package), adn the desire to have a word
    like gene to describe a similar process. Maybe this is partly why meme has
    persisted- it's context of production includes having a phonetic meaning not
    dissimilar to an existing word, mimesis, a conceptual meaning not unlike a
    existing word, gene, and being written like an existing word, the French
    word meme. These are all, especially the last one, very clear memetic
    strategies for replication.

    This doesn't preclude entirely new terms becoming accepted, of course, but
    the problem with your term is partly that it doesn't look like any other
    word (letter order is an important part of language), it's pronunciation
    isn't obvious, and it's meaning (despite your many attempts to explain it)
    isn't clear. so, it has none of the characteristics that might have helped
    it survive in the meme-pool. On top of that, it has to compete with an
    existing term 'I' which is well-established, has a clear meaning, is widely
    recognised, used and understood. I've already mentioned a range of terms,
    and there are others, already used in psychology to denote more than the
    everyday use of the term 'I', and these will have to be "defeated" in the
    memetic arms race also.

    Also, as if to demonstrate the point that memetics emerged (and is still
    conducted) through the strategy of copy the successful, then meme had a head
    start in appearing in what became an international bestseller from a leading
    scientist. Unless your term gets that kind of exposure it might not go
    beyond your immediate circle, in the same way that children and gangs
    develop their own terms, and meanings of words which tend to be quite
    exclusive to that small group. The best example of this I can think of is
    Valentine's day messages that are printed in newspapers- many are entirely
    meaningless to everybody but the two people involved in sending and
    (hopefully) receiving the message. I think your terms suffers from that
    kind of exclusivity.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Tyger
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 11:05 am
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
    >
    > hello again Chuck,
    >
    > eIe think that your hunches are partially correct and partially biased,
    > Chuck.
    > you say some people just like to fool around with words, I have no
    > argument
    > with that. the implication that it is of no value or that fooling around
    > with words is somehow derogative is a different issue. writers/poets and
    > even journalists are among the best word players the world has ever seen.
    > Granted that these humans stand generally as beacons of a vanguard in
    > advance of humanity at large.
    > concerning the tight subculture..:-) well what can I say to that, I
    > believe
    > any group of humans, having enough contact as to be valuably appelated as
    > a
    > group are in fact automatically a mini-micro or even nano- culture.:-) and
    > indeed will be biased to this or that direction. memetics should be the
    > science that studies propagation of ideas in culture. wehther it is a
    > sub-mini-nano etc. is a point to be disscussed separately. dont you agree?
    >
    > Best,
    > Tyger eIe
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Chuck Palson" <cpalson@mediaone.net>
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 4:47 PM
    > Subject: Re: a memetic experiment- an eIe opener
    >
    >
    > > In answer to my earlier promise to Tyger to look into it more, I agree
    > with Bill
    > > on this. The distinction is easily made by other phrases -- unless Bill
    > and I have
    > > mistaken the intended meaning. What remains to be explained, then, is
    > why
    > the
    > > experiment works with some people. I have two hunches: 1) some people
    > just
    > like to
    > > fool around with words more and easily get over the initial awkwardness
    > of
    > using a
    > > new word; 2) a tight little subculture committed to experiment and
    > proving
    > certain
    > > points they favor. What do you think, Tyger?
    > >
    > > Bill Spight wrote:
    > >
    > > > Dear Tyger,
    > > >
    > > > > meaning definition of eIe : eIe is a term used to designate the
    > reality I
    > > > > perceive, it is a combination of the " I" standing for self, in the
    > sense of
    > > > > core of reflection and eye, in the sense of the physical organ used
    > to
    > apply
    > > > > the action of sight or vision. it differs from "I" in that <eIe>
    > emphasizes
    > > > > the fact that whatever follows is fundamentally and irreducebly
    > > > > subjective.
    > > >
    > > > It sounds a lot like what is conveyed by the phrase, "As I see
    > > > it."
    > > >
    > > > > Moreover for those interested in the semantics and semiotics of
    > > > > applicability of meaning I would add that eIe should be used when
    > > > > specifically meaning to negate the supposed alieness of the self to
    > its
    > > > > surrounding. thus in fact eIe can stand also for I the
    > > > > interconnected one.
    > > > >
    > > > > examples of possible usage:
    > > > > 1. I am that eIe am--- as dinstinct from I am that I am
    > > > > 2. eIe am love--- as distinct from I love.... (fill the blank)
    > > > > 3. eIe am anger--- as distinct from I am angry
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > All of these sound like God is speaking.
    > > >
    > > > Besides, the distinctions are unclear.
    > > >
    > > > > It is our opinion that the usage of such a meme could add value to
    > > > > communication by being/or becoming an accepted form of taking full
    > > > > responsability for one's life.
    > > >
    > > > Taking full responsibility for one's life does not necessarily
    > > > improve communication. Cf. Sartre's Other.
    > > >
    > > > > Moreover it may by its irreducible
    > > > > subjectivity become an eIe opener.
    > > >
    > > > Other phrases which already accomplish much of what you want are,
    > > > "myself, (as) for me, IMO." In French, "pour moi," which echoes
    > > > Sartre's "pour soi."
    > > >
    > > > Best,
    > > >
    > > > Bill
    > > >
    > > > ===============================================================
    > > > 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 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 May 09 2000 - 13:25:27 BST