From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 12:54:16 GMT
Good morning,
For us, the core concept of memetics is that some ideas are
self-disseminating and self-defending. That they require expression and
reception to work is a given. (I think that Wade's performance theme refers
to what we refer to as expression and reception: we view this as one
essential component of the dissemination, and one in which a further
deterioration of precision takes place.) So anything that touches on this
would be, in our view, part of the field of memetics.
The predictive power of this model of memetics is dependent on adding one
additional element to the mix: understanding the acceptance criteria of the
recipient. Looking at this from the PoV of memetics, I suppose the
acceptance criteria must be viewed also as an intrinsic part of memetics,
especially is prediction is considered to be a necessary part of a valid
model (which, if I understand him correctly, Wade is arguing). We have not
viewed the matter of acceptance criteria as such, though, because I started
developing the subject of acceptance criteria well before I tackled
memetics, and I use the acceptance criteria material for a variety of
purposes not related to memetics.
Perhaps acceptance criteria can be viewed most usefully as lending analytic
power to memetics. This discussion is now leading me to think of the
acceptance criteria matter as being intrinsic to the subject of memetics.
Thanks for the prodding, Scott.
Cheers,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Scott Chase
> Sent: Wed, June 18, 2003 12:26 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Precision of replication
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: RE: Precision of replication
> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:38:35 -0400
> >
> >Hi, Scott --
> >
> >"Replication" is a word that we now avoid using in our memetic
> research --
> >it caused confusion and didn't lead to the distinction that we needed. I
> >shared some of our thinking about replication and imitation in a
> posting of
> >a few days ago.... I am hoping to hear from Richard about his take on my
> >thoughts on the necessity of identicalness in dissemination.
> >
> >We have also come to avoid the genetic analogy for the same reason, as I
> >tried to explain at least a year ago (to little avail on this
> list <smile>.
> >
> >My hope here is not that we will all come to an agreement on definitions
> >and
> >models, but that we might share some tidbit of information or
> thought that
> >may fit into someone else's work and help out. So, personally, I pick and
> >choose among the bits of views that are presented here, and with that and
> >other work my own body of understanding has grown and prospered.
> >
> But at what point does what you do cease to become memetics. If
> memetics is
> about cultural replicators and there happen to be no cultural
> replicators,
> what does that say for memetics and can what you do be properly called
> memetics?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP 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 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 18 Jun 2003 - 12:59:39 GMT