Re: Words and Memes

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 00:48:32 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: ality" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA02177 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:53:47 GMT
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:48:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Words and Memes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <003301c1b7f7$f141a1e0$9086b2d1@teddace>
Message-Id: <3BC6D888-2409-11D6-8DEC-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    [I don't know who wrote this-]

    >> It is the structure that allows self-dissemination and self-defense
    >> that makes a thing a meme, not the thing itself.

    But I don't think I'm being absurdly reductionist when I declare that
    the structure of something _is_ the thing itself.

    What else is there? Intent? The structure is the level of expression of
    the intent. The structure is the thing itself.

    Regardless of how much brainsmoke there is, the meme [performed] is the
    thing itself.

    As to the memetic processes that preceded this performance, they are
    products of evolution and part of our genetic and developmental makeup,
    not the thing [meme] itself.

    (As well as getting us to the point where minds emerge.)

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 01:17:56 GMT