Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA00837 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 31 May 2000 16:18:40 +0100 Message-ID: <3934E67D.64557474@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:16:29 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Cui Bono Chuck? References: <20000531075344.3493.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Paul marsden wrote:
> Chuck wrote
>
> >Both Dawkins and Blackmore go to great pains to say it is "just" a
> > >metaphor - and then seem to ignore their warnings.
>
> How can anything be but a metaphor? The whole of science is about models.
And of course you are correct. BUT, there are models and there are models. The
underlying argument is really about the adequacy of the model. I have asked
repeatedly on this forum what advantage the meme concept has in positing an
independent existence to memes as opposed to seeing whatever behavior is studied
as a product of a mind that is using tools to live in an environment. -- and
that these tools can be more or less effective or even so wrong headed that they
may lead to the extinction of our species. It looks to me -- and many others --
like a belief in gremlins. In fact many reviewers say that the Blackmore's
latest book makes excellent reading if seen as science fiction. The answers I
have recieved so far are: 1) don't worry about it because it's only a rhetorical
device to get people to think about how they behave, 2) memics isn't a science
anyway, but a point of view, and 3) memics makes excellent predictions (although
the particulars are always left out). The problem with these answers is that
memics is posing as a science by borrowing the gene metaphor. And if you look at
some of the posts carefully, most people here are taking the metaphor far more
seriously than just another point of view.
>
>
> Re - Weber: Weber's central insight was that status and political power (or
> Party in his words) were key in influencing structural relations within
> groups (ulimately societies), as well as class (defined by relation to the
> means of economic production) - in other words Weber was making the case
> that the ownership of the means of *cultural reproduction* could not be
> ignored as might be interpreted from some of Marx's later work.
I read **some** of Weber about 40 years ago. The some was highly conditioned by
the anti-communist atmosphere of the time, so Weber was seen as an antidote to
the communist menace incarnate - Karl Marx and materialism. I find yours and
Anns comments fascinating -- (as well as Fukuyama's in his Trust book) and may
yet go back and reread more than just the exerpts I was treated to in the past.
It sounds like he was far more aware of things than I was led to believe by the
carefully selected exerpts.
>
>
> Good to see that memetics is building bridges and building on existing
> models - rather than trying to reinvent the world according to itself in
> splendid isolation.
I would hope that would be the case, but it's still far to rare. Again, I would
ask - what is the advantage of having still another separate field. The whole
problem of the social sciences has been its fragmentation. What in particular
could the notion of memes add to our knowledge?
===============================================================
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 : Wed May 31 2000 - 16:19:26 BST