Re: electric meme bombs

From: Van oost Kenneth (kennethvanoost@belgacom.net)
Date: Sun 20 Oct 2002 - 15:19:28 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    > My argument is that by insisting upon the uniqueness of every
    > performance, so that no two performances cann be deemed to be
    > tokens of a single memetic type, you undermine linguistic definition
    > generally. By such a rule, there can only be one star, one meme, one
    > frog, one tree, etc., and all the other things that slightly differ from
    our
    > sole chosen exemplar would have to get their own words. This would
    > kill off language and communication entirely. I understand your desire
    > to counter my strong token/type argument, but this desperate attempt to
    > do so throws out not only the baby with the bathwater, but the whole
    > bloodline.

    Joe,

    This may be so with language but not with people though ! My stance is that each and every is an unique individual and my point is that everyone is entitled to be treated as such ! My good is not yours and my wrong is not your concern, we are both right and even so wrong !

    The point is that we have two seperate lines of thoughts, both wrong and oh so right, the fact is that only one can be seen as true and that is the line which survives memetically...

    Regards,

    Kenneth

    =============================================================== 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 : Sun 20 Oct 2002 - 15:08:19 GMT