Re: Standard definition

From: Bill Spight (bspight@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 20:12:46 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    Dear Kenneth,

    > > Bill:
    > > Language and other knowledge is hierarchically organized. As for
    > > language, I think that all of the -emes are memes: phonemes, morphemes,
    > > lexemes, sememes. However, the higher up we go in these hierarchies, the
    > > more abstract we get, the further from the senses, the less likely I
    > > think it is that things are transmitted *as a unit*, and the less likely
    > > that the entities on those levels are individual memes.
    >
    > Kenneth:
    >
    > Wouldn 't we get a better/ the best/ THE MEME on top !?

    Maybe so, but I don't think that's what happens, as a rule.

    > After all, if we could give meaning to a complex behavior in ONE
    > word ( lets say walking) is this than so abstract that we can 't get
    > it transmitted " as an unit ", and in the same token wouldn 't that
    > be one single meme !?
    >

    That does happen, doesn't it, on occasion? But in the transmission the full meaning is rarely transmitted as a unit. People end up with half-baked notions that way. ;-)

    I mean to discuss such matters in terms of lexemes, but somehow I have been getting sidetracked. Goal: post said discussion by Saturday.

    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 31 Oct 2002 - 20:15:46 GMT