From: Chris Taylor (chris.taylor@ebi.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 07 Feb 2006 - 22:15:59 GMT
Thanks for that -- the refinement of that point has sent me
right off on one :)
I think that if we were doing an anatomical atlas of memeplexes
we'd end up with a chapter on plex-defence mechanisms (with the
ammunition coming, as you say, from within its frame of
reference if that's the right way to put it). This has come up
in various ways before and I think makes huge amounts of sense.
Nazis had the hidden hand of the Jew; the religious can cite
lack of faith or the evil actions of their embodiment of a
nemesis; etc..
I'm interested in Ted's and 'ours' (sorry, but you get me
yeah?): We write him off for lack of evidence* (the prophets
Occam and Popper guide us); he writes us off for the _exact_
same reason, offering ultra-reductionist analyses and a
psychosociological analysis -- kind of a scientific agnosticism,
I suppose wrt the literature -- and additionally cites the
semi-cryptic tyranny of orthodoxy that is his hidden hand on
'our' tillers (a real one too actually, but entirely functional
for us by acting as a brake on 'advance', for consideration).
Heh. What other generic features should a memplex have?
Presumably a reason to be propagated, some sort of payload
(maybe minimal or vast), some sort of aspirational element to
appeal to other plexes and through them to the emotions perhaps.
What would we put along the memeplex cladogram as diagnostic
features of memeplex families (whether just a clustering of
convergently-evolved kinds, or the full ortho/paralogue tree).
So we could do that analysis; pick five to ten memeplexes and
try to describe them like a naturalist would, then cluster by
the 'phemes' we see in the 'phemotype' (no real hope of a
memeotype, sadly imho) and maybe contrast convergence with
descent from a LUCA. We could even look at reticulate networks
-- promiscuous plexes swapping bits ;D
We could also maybe posit a minimal functional memeplex; like
TIGR (iirc) did with (er) M.genitalium (was it, or something) --
anyway basically they did all the gene knockouts that (whatever
it was) could stand and still function...
Cheers, Chris.
* Ted -- I know, that paper, other stuff, but bear with me for
the sake of the argument, which is up a level from the specifics...
Robin Faichney wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding. I didn't actually have the "hidden
> hand" phrase in mind there, but rather the practice of explaining all
> opposition to a given theory in that theory's terms, eg "You disagree
> with memetics because you have a mind virus". That's a closed system of
> belief. It is, I think, at least theoretically possible to hold a theory
> that says people do things for reasons that are different from what they
> think, without trying to explain all opposition to that theory thusly.
> But of course it might well be the case in practice that anyone who
> really believes in such a theory, finds the temptation to use it to
> explain away opposition just too strong to resist, at least in certain
> circumstances. By the way, it's nice to see that you're still around too.
>
>
> Friday, February 3, 2006, 8:41:41 AM, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks Robin
>
>
> Nice to see you are still with the list. You are right about "hidden
> hand". I can't remember exactly where I got it from (David Hull?), but
> a quick check on google seems to indicate that it is from Adam Smith,
> and therefore probably means something slightly different to what I
> intended.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Derek
>
>
> At 17:03 02/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Very nice paper, Derek, thanks a lot. One very minor point: in note 10
> you say:
>
>
>
> It is interesting that all four of these theories can use (and
> have used) the following argument against their opponents: ‘You disagree
> with the sublime truth of psychoanalysis/Marxism/sociobiology/memetics
> because you are repressed/are a bourgeois/are genetically programmed to
> avoid the unpalatable/have a mind virus.’
>
>
>
> It might be worth mentioning that the generally accepted term (among
> philosophers, at least) for such theories is "closed belief systems".
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Robin mailto:robin@mmmi.org
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robin mailto:robin@mmmi.org
>
> ============================================================= 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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ chris.taylor@ebi.ac.uk http://psidev.sf.net/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== 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 07 Feb 2006 - 22:37:47 GMT