Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 10:43:34 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Useless memes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id KAA06823 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 May 2000 10:50:08 +0100
    Message-ID: <005601bfbd8d$48e26c20$ef0abed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <200005112107.RAA20822@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
    Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:43:34 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Joe E. Dees <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:11 PM
    Subject: RE: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?

    >
    > >
    > > 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.

    <<Not to nit pick any further, not species-specific !?
    If we take species in the narrow sense (f..e in the sense of the lower
    (poorer) classes, what about slang !? >>

      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.

    > >

    >
    >

    ===============================================================
    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 : Sun May 14 2000 - 10:50:33 BST