Re: Why Europe is so Contrary

From: Grant Callaghan (grantc4@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun 24 Nov 2002 - 16:28:11 GMT

  • Next message: Ray Recchia: "Re: Toward a discussion of Israel, Palestine and memtics"

    For the commedian doing the pratfall, the intent is to make the audience laugh and to make a living in the trade of comedy. There are no doubt other intents based on a particular incident, but the exchange of information includes "I know how to make you laugh." and the goods include an exchange of the commedian's time and effort for the audience's pleasure and willingness to pay for that time and effort.

    The only relationship I can see between the pratfall and the incident which the pratfall copies is that someone laughed when the original happened. This no doubt gave some commedian the idea of using it to make others laugh.
      The first fall was probably not intentional, and thus not memetic, and the prafall is intentional and thus a meme. It involves a transaction as noted above. If the pratfall doesn't produce a laugh, the audience feels cheated and the commedian feels a sense of failure to perform. Dare I say impotence? Oh, hell. I've said it already.

    Cheers,

    Grant

    >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 02:28:26 -0500
    >
    >
    >On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 09:51 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
    >
    >>I call it transactional because it involves a transaction, an exchange of
    >>goods or information, between two or more parties. Every transaction is a
    >>performance but the word "performance" doesn't imply the exchange of
    >>information and the relationship between the parties.
    >
    >The comedian who replicates the accidental fall of another as the pratfall
    >of slapstick received or exchanged very little, if any, goods from the
    >victim of the fall, but, performed the pratfall nonetheless.
    >
    >There is no need for any relationship between these two, and performance,
    >observation, and replication are all that is demanded in the pemetic model.
    >There is very little, if any, exchange of goods or information in my
    >example- most of the information of the fall is, in fact, ignored, because
    >the comedian needs to practice his fall as totally _not_ accident.
    >
    >But, I know this is mostly semantic- the information gained about how to
    >perform the pratfall is somewhat there, in the first fall itself.
    >
    >I would only argue, outside of this semantic quarrel, that _no intent_ is
    >required in the performance model, whereas I see it being required in the
    >transactional (and in the memesinthemind) model.
    >
    >- 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

    _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    =============================================================== 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 24 Nov 2002 - 16:30:49 GMT