Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA28414 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 22:09:24 +0100 Message-Id: <200005112107.RAA20822@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:11:28 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? In-reply-to: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C3688CC@NWTH-EXCHANGE> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Bruce Jones <BruceJ@nwths.com>
To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
Date sent: Thu, 11 May 2000 16:03:20 -0500
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wade T.Smith [SMTP:wade_smith@harvard.edu]
> > Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
> >
> >
> > >Why can't animals have societies?
> > >First what is your definition of a society?
> >
> > They can- they do.
> [BJ]
> Thank you
>
> > But, if we accept the sentence "Did language drive society or vice
> > versa?" then we are compelled to see the difference between those animals
> > that have language, and those that don't, and compare their organization.
> > There is much reason to say all animals have a society and that human
> > language lends only, uh, culture to the mix....
> [BJ]
> Not to nit pick here ... but .... define language! If language is
> described as the articulation, through a system of signals, of basic
> survival needs; hunger, fear, joy, sadness, danger, and lack of danger then
> ALL species have a language. Even caterpillars have a language. So follows
> if language is required to have a society then ALL animals have a society.
>
> If language is defined in the very narrow context of the ability to
> express philosophical and abstract concepts that can be acted upon in a
> meaningful manner. Then only man has language and only man has society.
>
> Not disagreeing with you but trying find a tree in a forest.
>
> If we take the stand that all animals have language and all animals
> have a society and if memes are an integral part of the language of society
> then memetics IS at the atomic level of all interactions. However, if we
> take the position that memes must propagate their selfness to survive and
> memes can only be replicated through abstract ideas ..... then only man can
> have memes and memes are required for society.
>
Ah, but our language is open-ended, employing the phonemic
principle, whereby a finite number of distinguishable sounds may
be strung together in differing ways to form an infinite number of
possible words - besides which, our word-referent links are arbitrary
and multiple (we have multiple languages), not species-specific and
genetically circumscribed. There is also the little matter of syntax;
we have it; they don't. Besides which we have terms for which
there are no concrete perceptual referents; the terms represent
abstractions - no animal species has been known to generate
anything approaching this. To sum up, there are VAST differences
between OUR language(s) and the communicative systems of
other species.
>
> my $0.02 ... again
>
> Bruce
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:10:01 BST