From: Philip Jonkers (ephilution@attbi.com)
Date: Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 07:55:26 GMT
> Vincent:
> > I think Richard questioned the importance/relevance of distinctions
> between
> > ideas, behaviours and artifacts. At the end of the day it may not
matter
> > much conceptually (although I think it might), but it certainly matters
> > operationally, in terms of what we study if we want to try and study
memes
> > "in the wild" (i.e. empirically). If memes are in minds that's no good
to
> > me, as I'm not a neuroscientist or psychologist; if they're in
behaviours,
> > then its perhaps social psychologists' and anthropologists' territory,
> again
> > no good to me. If they're in artifacts, then people like me can play
too!
> > In other words, I'll admit I have a professional vested interest in
trying
> > to keep an artifactual dimension to memes.
>
> If memes as artifacts makes you and Derek happy among others;
> memes as behavior makes guys like Wade happy, and memes as ideas (among
> other things) makes me and a whole bunch of other people happy, then why
not
> fuse all those suggestions into one overarching abstract definition?
> Just an idea... er, meme I mean ;-).
>
>
> Phil.
>
>
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Fri 18 Oct 2002 - 08:03:54 GMT