From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 12:02:12 GMT
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 06:25 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> a common thought-basis
> for instances of similar actions?
The bemetic model assumes a similar common thought-basis (brain
activity) for things like spider webs, language acquisition, artistic
creation, etc. Where we catalog and define these processes might,
perhaps, find things like meme-ories. It also assumes all the
commonalities of speciation. In short, it assumes all that is here to
see about the human being as a member of the life of this planet, if not
this universe.
It also assumes the complex homo sapien brain to house a
self-referential emergent process. And, maybe we'll find the closet
that's in, too. No tellin'.
But regardless, how important is the self to cultural continuity?
I would say a self is adamantly required to be a participant in culture,
but, we still need at least two to tango.
Are at least two selves, perhaps, at the top of the list of things that
are really necessary for culture? You betcha. No self is a cultural
island.
What came first, the self, or culture? Are the two in some way part of
the same process? (Could be. It's a substantial argument, I think if not
self-evident. But not if one claims birds have culture.)
- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 12:06:08 GMT