Re: memes defined operationally (from article)

From: Philip Jonkers (philosophimur@dygo.com)
Date: Fri 17 Jan 2003 - 19:49:55 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "To see is to categorize"

    Keith:
    >While I don't feel the need for an exact definition of a meme, applying it
    >to an idea that never makes the jump from person to person misses the
    >essence of the concept--at least to me.

    I agree, from an evolutionary point of view elements derived from the self-plex are perhaps the least interesting ones. But from a point of view of self-consciousness and the development of the ego they are quite interesting. Also, I think most self-plex memes are being replicated since we are quite an egalitarian bunch of creatures who all use the same language to express our ego in. For instance, revelations like "I am good in math" or "I want to be good in physics" can hardly be called unique.

    Phil

    =============================================================== 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 17 Jan 2003 - 19:49:14 GMT