Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA18727 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 06:14:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20000510051230.46859.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [216.40.141.102] From: "Mark J." <libertarian99@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central Qs of memetics... Some Points/Ideas for Mr. Palson Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 01:12:30 EDT Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I have a few logs to toss on the fire in the way of Mr. Palson's original
reply...
> > Chuck Palson wrote:
> >
>Now, as to values, I see it all the time. Choice of metaphors is always
>revealing, and the notion that memes are "viruses" that can "infect" tells
>me
>something about the point of view.
I would argue that this is not necc. the case. While theory is often framed
for aesthetic concern, predictive power and understanding is paramount. The
memetic way of understaning information distribution has definite appeal it
seems to me. While you are correct Mr. Palson that there are many different
explanitions from other disciplines that already cover much of the topics
discussed in memetics, meme theory potentially provides another piece to the
puzzle. It may be "the theory" the social sciences have been looking for.
It may be a slight facet. It may also be bunk. The way to go about
determining this is two-fold.
First is to ask "If this theory is true what could it mean for X?" Second
is to ask "What does this say about existing models of relationship?" Then
if you can test X or better understand how X relates to Y, meme theory will
be shown to have some potential merit. I would personally argue that it has
merit even if it covers ground that is not in the least bit new. In
psychology, for example, there are several major theoretical schools that
have EXTREME differences in thought and technique. Still many of these
disparate schools can be used together to provide a better picture. Some
cases may call for behavior therapy, others cognative, and still others
biomedical intervention. If memes can add even a slight bit to our
understanding they should be looked at with a kind of seriousness. I
personally dont like the picture presented by old school "black box"
behaviorism, yet I know it has definite useful applications. I believe the
same situation may be said to apply to memes. While the notion of ideas
"out to get us" is not the least bit palatable to some, we must realize that
palatiblity is a moot point. Does meme thoery present new explanations for
traditional phenomenon? Yes. Do these new explanations suggest differnt
mechanisms of action in the spread of ideas and behaviors? Yes. Can these
new suggestions be contrasted with existing models? Yes. Could
experinmentation in memetics lead to support for the concept in general as
an effective model? Yes (and there are already examples of this from
various authors and soon to be myself as well). Bottom line... while you
may not like the metaphor, it matters little. All theories are tenetive
anyway so no need to believe that memes are or are not the "Theory Of
Everything" when it comes to any area. All that maters is whether it may
have some potential use. I would think that it definitly has that, even if
for no other reason than to posit another view of information.
*more below***
>It seems to me that people who call themselves memologists make this
>mistake
>time and time again. They simply don't look very closely at the use value
>of
>certain cultural behaviors; they simply assume whatever is convenient.
>
>You are assuming the Darwinian selection of memes a la Dawkins, Blackmore
>etc.
>The whole model is, as far as I can see, based on the faulty methodolgy and
>value judgements I have described above. People choose to hold on to memes
>because of some well described reasons. And they get rid of them for other
>well
>understood reasons. As far as I can see, describing them as having a life
>of
>their own simply mystifies the problem.
>
It is a "short hand" as Sue herself pains to point out in her book. It is
akin to saying "selfish gene." Are genes self-interested jerks? No! It is
just a way to see that they are out for their own replication. They dont
have an agenda or plot. They just replicate. The other added terminology
is to better explain the concept to us folks who do think and try to
understand. I am pretty sure that no one is making a serious ontological
claim as to the status of our friends/enemies the memes. It is just a way
to understand the picture. Models are never the real thing. They just
represent.
I don't see how positing memes as having a life of their
>own helps out - or could. So if you think so, maybe you can clarify why the
>concept of memes would help.
>
See above... it is "mental shorthand" for a concept. Are memes really out
there like some physical virus? No. The ideas are what we are tracking and
they are mere phantoms. They are akin to the notion of force in physics.
What is seen as "force" is really a distortion of the fabric of space-time.
There is not a mystic "force" pulling the Earth around the sun... it just
appears that way. Same thing with "memes." They are not out there acting,
they are merely a name for a pattern of action, an effective model is all.
It looks AS IF there were little gremlins called memes battling to get
inside our skulls, but this is only a clever picture for a non-intelligent
process. Much as evolution lacks a teleology so do the memes. While we may
think of them as "trying to take over," in actuality they are just
replicating. Whether they survive our not is beyond their control and
depends on their hosts and the environment. They are "blind" in the same
manner that the evolutionary watchmaker is.
I hope this answers a few points on the matter Mr. Palson or at least gives
you a glimpse of what some of the rest of us see as answers to your points.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
===============================================================
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 : Wed May 10 2000 - 06:15:09 BST