Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA23175 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:15:23 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000801095028.035ecb00@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:08:33 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: memes in minds, or memes in media? In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174596E@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_517926120==_.ALT" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:20 PM 8/1/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>Hmm...
>
>Firstly, apologies for being behind the times, but I do feel I was trying to
>address an element which I don't think has really been addressed properly in
>memetic circles, not really the concept of meme itself.
>
>What problems exactly does dropping the term actually solve?
Vincent,
To me, the real question is what problems does using the new term "meme"
solve. If you read my 1998 paper, you will see that I had thought I was
getting a word that could be more specific than old words such as "idea,"
"thought," "belief," etc.
Another communications nightmare I wish to avoid is explaining over and
over that I do not mean what the word "meme" has come to mean to all sorts
of other people. Take the following sentence from John Hoult's article
"What's in a Meme," forwarded by Wade Smith: "The fundamental components of
ideas act just like genes, competing for brain space the same way organisms
vie for breathing space." First, I do not know what Hoult means by "the
fundamental components of ideas." It has a nice technological and
scientific sound for popular audiences, but that does not really help me.
Then I have to explain to readers that, unlike Hoult, I do not claim that
memes "act just like genes." There are some similarities, but I do not want
people reading such a strong statement between the lines of what I write.
Likewise for the notion that memes compete for brain space "the same way
organisms vie for breathing space." I also don't want readers assuming that
I must be tacitly repeating Dawkins's claim that memes "literally
parasitize" the brain. I have some original things to say about important
subjects, and would really prefer if readers did not get distracted and
thrown off course by unnecessary concerns that I might be saying memes
should always be considered as life forms, as parasites, etc.
>Does it stop people accusing a writer of mis-understanding, mis-using the
>term, because it seems to me that the end result of that is that people use
>idiolectic terms that they can defend to the hilt because only they know
>exactly what they mean by it. I don't see how that benefits anyone, as
>anyone trying to make sense of all these terms isn't necessarily going to
>get anywhere (and even if they do they are probably going to come up with
>their own new name that supposedly synthesises all the previous terms).
As it happens, I have also been using the term "thought contagion" for a
long time, and have had less problem with people seriously misreading what
I mean by it, especially in more recent works. The term is composed of two
much older words that have long-established meanings to readers, so it does
not require readers to make sense of another neologism--although the
conjunction of the two words is still new to many readers. Once readers
make it past any fears they may have about combining two abstract nouns,
they seem to find "thought contagion" to be fairly self-explanatory.
>The consequences of what one means by meme is important in terms of
>empirical practice, but that was not really my point. My point was about
>trying to reclaim inherently problematic research (a la Phillips) just by
>changing whatever terms have been used in the past with meme, or by aping
>their methodologies because they seem to do memetics-like things. In this
>sense I quite agree the term may appear more trouble than its worth.
>
>However, I feel the term does have potential merit, and since this is a
>memetics listserv, I see no problem in continuing to use it here. At this
>point the merit comes from what the term represents in terms of process- the
>idea that memes (whatever people think they are) are replicators, and thus
>spread because they are good at spreading and no more. Whether memes are
>thus beliefs, ideas, instructions, strategies, mind viruses or cultural
>artefacts or whatever else people have defined them as, this is the common
>element we surely all agree upon?
Actually, there is not even consensus on whether memes are replicators. But
even if there were, having the term refer to such a broad class as beliefs,
ideas, instructions, strategies, mind viruses, cultural artifacts,
behaviors, etc. can itself create some unexpected consequences. If you
write up what is called a memetic analysis of a subject, you might be
faulted for not discussing all the cultural evolution aspects, including
those that involve beliefs, ideas, instructions, strategies, mind viruses,
cultural artifacts, behaviors, etc. Having the word mean so many different
things may make it more difficult to limit your objectives to something
less ambitious but more attainable, such as analyzing the contagious
beliefs component of a phenomenon with the understanding that there are
more aspects to it than just beliefs.
>Vincent
>
>[BTW, you'll be pleased to know that I finally received a copy of your book,
>and I am currently in the middle of it]
Yes, I am pleased that you finally have a copy of TC. If you find a good
example of something in it that really needed to be expressed with the word
"meme" instead of some alternative wording, do let me know.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 05:16:17 BST