Re: Durkheim redux

From: Bill Spight (bspight@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu 14 Apr 2005 - 05:18:58 GMT

Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"

Previous message: Scott Chase: "Julian Huxley on biological and cultural evolution (a must see)"
In reply to: Chris Taylor: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Next in thread: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Reply: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Reply: Chris Taylor: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Dear Chris,

> Cultural memes can be regenerated by artefacts according to a posse
> on here yes? Is pop art culture? Is 'natural' art? Is Nature itself?
> Where is the demarcation between culture and environment? This is a
> meaningless distinction.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what you say, you are not claiming that ~memes are cultural (since 'culture' is meaningless). That is rather different from what the meme machinists are saying.

Thanks,

Bill

=============================================================== 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

Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Previous message: Scott Chase: "Julian Huxley on biological and cultural evolution (a must see)"
In reply to: Chris Taylor: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Next in thread: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Reply: Scott Chase: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Reply: Chris Taylor: "Re: Durkheim redux"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 14 Apr 2005 - 05:38:15 GMT