Re: I know one when I see one

From: Bill Spight (bspight@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu 24 Oct 2002 - 16:41:05 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: I know one when I see one"

    Dear Grant,

    > Would you say the term "couch potato" is an example of a meme
    > that propagated itself?

    It is a meme, but it does not propagate itself.

    > Words are not memes themselves because they can mean anything depending on
    > the circumstances in which they are received. They carry information but are
    > not the information being carried.

    I agree, but the information they carry (metaphorically) is not the only information they possess. They also have structural information. If you define a meme as information, that information is sufficient. I will post more about "lex-memes" soon. :-)

    In any event, in the context of "I know one when I see one", you do not have do define memes to include words. It is enough to identify memes by words. I suspect that you are denying that, but I am not sure. Would you say that each word *sense* is sufficient to identify a meme?

    > So the same sentence, containing the same words, can be used by different
    > speakers to send out four different messages. The words, therefore, are not
    > the meme. They are artifacts which carry the meme.

    As I pointed out to Vincent, emphasis may have a memetic component. Surely it does in spoken English. And besides, as I also pointed out, just because something carries meaning does not mean that it is memetic. Much of animal communication is not memetic, though it is meaningful.

    > The reason the sentence and the
    > phrase can have the same exact word content but an infinite number of
    > meanings is because it can be used in an infinite number of situations. The
    > meaning of any word, phrase, or sentence is context sensitive.
    >

    Indeed. However, memes are meaningful, but meanings are not memes.

    > So the sentence, "I know a meme when I see one." is a lie.

    I guess there is less unity than I supposed. ;-)

    > You can't see
    > one. You can only perceive the artifact that carries it. You only
    > recognize the artifact as a meme carrying sentence after a number of people
    > have started using it in their own communications. But the message or
    > information it carries can be completely different for each person each time
    > it is used. So where is the meme?
    >

    Indeed. If memes are meanings, and meanings are contextual, you can have communication, perhaps, but it is not clear that you have cultural transfer simply by transferring meanings. One thing I assumed for memes for all definitions is that they are units of cultural transfer. So where is the meme?

    Best,

    Bill

    =============================================================== 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 : Thu 24 Oct 2002 - 16:44:35 GMT