Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA02541 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 25 May 2000 06:38:50 +0100 From: "havelock" <havelock@tig.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:37:48 +1000 Message-ID: <LNBBJFJFCJFOIJDOGJMAKEHJEPAA.havelock@tig.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJAEOOENAA.richard@brodietech.com> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Only coming in at the end of this thread but ...Richard does this mean that
an archaeologist or anthropologist that correctly predicts a factor or
characteristic of a 'dead' society before having found it is less succesful
than someone that predicts something that might happen? These are both
unknowns that can only be identified by scientific application. Your
explanation sounds a tad linear.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Richard Brodie
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 3:14 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
>
>
> You aren't giving an explanation, merely a description. Your
> theory doesn't
> predict anything. There are an infinity of ways to construct
> complex models
> to understand the past. The only way to know what is
> scientifically valid is
> to successfully predict the future.
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:01 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
>
>
>
>
> "Wade T.Smith" wrote:
>
> > On 05/24/00 06:49, Vincent Campbell said this-
> >
> > >(The point about seppuku, was that this is a ritual behaviour that has
> > >persisted for many generations explicitly involving suicide- how do you
> > >explain it?)
> >
> > Perhaps with the same breath that explains Clinton's _not_ performing
> > such a ceremony in the face of precisely a situation in which the
> > nipponese culture would demand it.
>
> >
> > Which is to say, there is no simple explanation for the strength of a
> > culture or the directions is allows.
> >
>
> You missed my point, Wade. The difference is to what extent
> reputation plays
> a role in each society because of ecological conditions. In this
> country, if
> you get a bad reputation in one town, you can simply move to
> another town or
> state, set up residence by showing your bank account, and start anew. Ask
> any European who has moved here, and they will tell you they are
> astonished
> by this -- and usually love it (although perhaps academics are out of the
> loop). In a land short country like Japan where people must stay in one
> place, they don't have that option. That is why the stain generally lasts
> and is far more serious than here.
>
> Actually, I should substitute the word land for resources for modern
> industrial societies. I have tested this out cross culturally and it has
> works every time. This continuum seems to work in the orient also as well
> as within the US. I know of no people that relies less on reputation to
> evaluate their countrymen, and it is a defining characteristic of our
> mentality.
>
> And, yes there are explanations for the strength of *every*
> cultural traits
> because the culture of a people is its tool kit for living, not simply a
> pretty thing to wear or eat. Most social scientists simply assume
> there are
> no explanations for certain things and don't try to investigate
> any further.
> Just about everyone on this listserv, for example, believes this
> as a matter
> of faith. The most recent such investigator is Fukuyama who
> states outright
> that 20% of culture is free variation, a figure he pulls out of the air
> without being challenged.
>
>
>
> >
> > - 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 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 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 : Thu May 25 2000 - 06:39:25 BST