Re: electric meme bombs

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 07:35:43 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Standard definition"

    >
    > On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 12:31 , joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    >
    > > every thing is a new thing, unrelated to what came
    > > before,
    >
    > Every peme _is_ a new thing, (time is not motionless, and every
    > performance is a new performance, these are facts of the universe),
    > but, please, in no way do I say they are _unrelated_ to the ones that
    > came before, and, please, tell me where you think I have said that,
    > because, I am still convinced you have not understood what I am
    > saying, at all.
    >
    > You keep coming at it while looking away.
    >
    The only way that subsequent performances could be related to previous ones would be to share a common template; that template is the meme-type, of which the similar performances are tokens, and it is stored within the brain between those similar performances, and accessed in order to inform them.
    >
    > - 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 07:39:49 GMT