Re: Venue

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat 24 May 2003 - 03:16:07 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Props"

    >
    > On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 08:50 PM, Reed wrote:
    >
    > > At best you could say it favors certain kinds of
    > > expression as geographical conformations favor certain paths for a
    > > river.
    >
    > I think that is more than best, I think that is enough.
    >
    > > "No, indeed, it does not. But the people who put it there did. And
    > > the fact it is there will make you use it, if it works properly."
    > >
    > > Using your examples of Tinglit artifacts and Cargo Cults would
    > > refute that statement.
    >
    > No, I do not refute myself. The Tlingit artifact did not work
    > properly, and the cargo cults could not operate their totems properly.
    > The venue for proper operation is not present in either case, and in
    > the absence of the venue, cultural evolution is not possible.
    >
    > > But there is no such thing as a 'fact' that a
    > > physical object must serve a specific purpose.
    >
    > I totally agree. The only fact about a physical object is its
    > physicality. But the only meaning attached to it is from culture,
    > which gives it a purpose, and much of culture is the explanation of
    > these purposes, so that there will be followers.
    >
    > > "I suspect you'll still have a door, though."
    >
    > What I meant was- I suspect there will still be a door (a means of
    > ingress and egress) in your house that you will use and call a 'door'
    > even though a very similar slab of wood is now a table in your living
    > room.
    >
    > > Without your mind it is just a slab of wood.
    >
    > Without the cultural venue of the house and the carpentry (after all,
    > Intuits do not use doors), it is just a slab of wood. No-one can keep
    > a door in their mind and let another know there is a means of ingress
    > and egress to a house using it. The thing that makes it a door is not
    > simply the fact that someone thinks such a thing as a door exists, but
    > that the venue of the house has been conformed to the culture that
    > calls this egress a door. Putting a slab of wood on hinges and
    > attaching it to a wall and calling this means of ingress and egress a
    > 'door' is a cultural command. That someone follows this command is
    > selection. That someone observes and uses the door is replication.
    > That someone puts a knob on it is a mutation of the venue which will
    > also be observed and perchance selected and, perchance, replicated.
    >
    > > I've been pointing out that the only meaningful
    > > parts of the venue...the parts that have agency or can be thought of
    > > as participating in cultural evolution...are in the brain.
    >
    > As all these thoughts of the door are, as you say, pre-cursors of the
    > performance and the selection and the mutation, (not to mention the
    > carpentry), which are all necessary and sufficient for evolution,
    > saying that just this _thought_ is all that is required for this
    > evolution is, well, not even wrong. The brain still has to put them
    > somewhere.
    >
    And the 'them' are memes and the 'somewhere' is internally, that is, cognitively.
    >
    > - 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 : Sat 24 May 2003 - 03:27:00 GMT