From: Grant Callaghan (grantc4@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 22:52:19 GMT
I know that literature pretty well, and the meme metaphor has
nothing
whatever to offer that literature. If you want to talk about
frames or
blends or whatever, you should use those terms. The people who
talk about
frames and blends and knowledge representation and cognitive
networks etc.
don't talk about replication and parasites and hosts and all
that. They
donšt need to and that pseudo-biological language adds nothing
to our
understanding.
Bill Benzon
-- I think you got it backwards. I was saying that cognitive science has a lot to offer memetics, not the other way around. I get the idea you wish the whole concept of memetics would just disappear, but I think there is something there that is not being discussed in the literature of cognitive science and that is how ideas become culture. I, too, don't care much for the terminology and other baggage carried over from biological sciences, but I think that will change as we discuss these ideas and narrow them down to more specific definitions. To my mind the differences betwen the two fields is like the differences between British and American English. They call a front window on a car a wind screen and we call it a windshield. They rise up in a lift and we rise up in an elevator. But once we realize we are both talking about the same thing, the words sort themselves out. Either term can convey the same idea. Grant _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE 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 16 Feb 2003 - 22:49:45 GMT