RE: back to basics

From: Ray Recchia (rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com)
Date: Wed 28 May 2003 - 17:40:48 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: Watches & Necklaces"

    > > Of Wade T. Smith
    > > Sent: Wed, May 28, 2003 11:08 AM
    > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > > Subject: back to basics
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 09:01 AM, Richard wrote:
    > >
    > > > That's the definition of memetics.
    > >
    > > "Memetics can be defined as an approach trying to model the evolution
    > > of memes." (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMES.html)
    > >
    > > Indeed, the vicious circle involved in the definition of memetics
    > > requires that the meme be not only present, but fully accounted for.
    > >
    > > And, IMHO, it ain't.
    > >

    Yawn.

    We've done this one and done this one. Biology can be defined as the study of life, but it seems to have been a very successful pursuit without a precise definition of the term "life".

    The reverse tautology is probably more appropriate. Why would you need to study something if you knew what it was?

    But even that isn't correct, because we even if we do have a precise definition there can still be fun things to learn. Better just to ignore word games like this altogether.

    Ray Recchia

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed 28 May 2003 - 17:36:22 GMT