Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA08103 (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 22:40:55 +0100 Message-Id: <200005142138.RAA15355@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:42:53 -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: <005601bfbd8d$48e26c20$ef0abed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa?
Date sent: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:43:34 +0200
Send 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 !? >>
>
If we take species in the way that I offered it, i.e. HUMAN species,
your mention of slang supports, not undermines, my contention, as
it adds to the multiplicity of arbitrary and consensually chosen
language forms our species has created.
>
> 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 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 - 22:41:17 BST