From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue 20 May 2003 - 19:32:47 GMT
>
> On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Joe wrote:
>
> > The performed meme does not issue
>
> Here is your central error to understanding the performance model.
>
> It is _not_ 'a performed meme'. No, it ain't.
>
> In the performance model, the performance _is_ the meme.
>
> Big, solid difference. It ain't semantic, it's definitional.
>
I got it; I just don't agree with it, for a plethora of good solid reasons,
which I have been giving here over and over and over again...will
nothing penetrate your self-constructed filters?
A bad definition is just that - a bad definition. Defining something adds
nothing to its credibility if the definition is bad; it simply highlights its
lack of same. You're trying to tell people that the mail service is the
letter. It just doesn't wash. The letter is necessary for there to be
something TO mail, and before it's mailed, it's still a letter. Kapeesh?
>
> And you ain't got it. And all your following arguments are irrelevant,
> especially those concerning latency as a property of memes in their
> imagined subclass of memory.
>
See above and lose the scales superglued to your ocular orbs.
>
> > But something not present in the venue got transmitted
>
> No, there was nothing 'not present' in that particular venue. All the
> information was there, nothing from the outside of that venue or the
> performances within it was needed.
>
Wrongo, boyo; the info. that the tomatoes were nontoxic to humans was
not present anywhere in the external environment. I triple-dog-DARE
you to show me where it was. And Jack had to know this piece of info.
before he told it to Jill, in order to do so. Where did he store this
knowledge? In his BRAIN, dewde! It was a meme that had been
transferred to him, and he subsequently transferred it to Jill. Coffee,
anyone? It's wake-up time!
>
> > If you can explain how that performance
> > can be meaningful without knowledge
>
> Any meme, any performance, may attain a meaning for the observer. But
> it doesn't have to. Someone can _act_ without either meaning or
> knowledge. "Comprehension is not requisite for cooperation."
>
No one can INTENTIONALLY act without meaning or knowledge. This
may come as news to you, Wade, but the entire horizon of human
experience and communication is not circumscribed by accidental
pratfalls. In fact, light-years from it. And when the meaning that the
recipient grasps is similar to the meaning that the transmitter intends,
memetic exchange has taken place. When Jill understood that Jack
was proposing and that her dad was waiting at the next bus stop with
the ring, Jack had transmitted something new to Jill. But Jack
understood this proposal intention ahead of time, before he activated
his latent self-constructed meme.
>
> - 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
>
===============================================================
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 : Tue 20 May 2003 - 19:37:56 GMT