Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA22269 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:41:42 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000610110746.01e03dd0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:38:38 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: Re: Imitation or transmission? In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006100907520.18957-100000@wolfe.umd.edu> References: <20000610110615.30526.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 09:23 AM 6/10/00 -0400, Lawrence H. de Bivort wrote:
<snip>
>The area missing from this list, and properly so, IMO, is that of engineering.
Lawrence,
There should really be no surprise that people do not simply donate
serious, potentially lucrative memetic engineering ideas over a listserver.
That would only lead to business competition. Memetically speaking, those
who know of good memetic engineering ideas have little reason for giving
their knowledge away free of charge.
Paraphrasings of existing marketing science using the word "meme" are
another matter, however. Without giving away any valuable new insights
attained with replicator theory, one can make oneself appear to have
lucrative new ideas. Appearances are the next best thing to reality in
terms of making money: imparting such appearances can win lucrative
contracts for work that could just as easily have been done by people
oblivious to memetics. The different propagation advantages for serious
memetic engineering ideas and mere claims thereof can create a situation
where most of what is available free of charge is hype.
>Lawrence de Bivort
>The Memetics Group
By the way, what is the Memetics Group?
I do not ask this as a prelude to criticism. My previous criticism of
"Institute for Memetics Research" was based on the fact that the name has
been presented in such a way as to mislead people into thinking that it
refers to a continuing research institution, when in fact it does not. In
order to be a true institution, it must achieve a continuity of its primary
functions that can survive the departure of a single individual. Otherwise,
it is just the Mr. So and So Enterprise. Instead, a single individual
decided to shut down "IRM" functions while continuing to refer to it as if
it were a continuing institution. I was only willing to treat IMR as being
barely an institution as long as its primary functions were being performed
on a continuing basis. A "group," on the other hand, can dissolve at any
time and need not have any mechanism of continuity, unless it is used in
such a way as to suggest a group of institutions.
If The Memetics Group is an engineering operation, then perhaps you can
take your own suggestion to talk about engineering by telling us a little
about the Group--without necessarily disclosing proprietary information.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 : Sat Jun 10 2000 - 17:42:20 BST