Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA00934 (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 17:46:03 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000802100956.00d25ef0@popmail.mcs.net> X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:41:04 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net> Subject: RE: memes in minds, or memes in media? In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745974@inchna.stir.ac.uk > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 12:32 PM 8/2/00 +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>It's funny you should say this-
>
>'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.'
>
>As I was continuing to read your book last night, with your previous post in
>mind, I started wondering pretty much the opposite to this, in other words,
>what term would you use to replace the term 'meme' as it appears in the
>book, which after all is quite a lot.
>
>I'm sure you're right that there is disagreement over the replicator part of
>the theory, as much as any other part. Avoiding the term meme, and
>favouring the term 'thought contagion', doesn't take away such problems
>though does it? You still have to identify the process by which though
>contagions spread, and the mechanism/agent of that process.
>
>I think there is a clear difference in emphasis, in your book at least, in
>that you seem to focus heavily on thought contagia (is that the right
>grammar? meme to memes is easy, contagion to contagia or should it be
>contagions?) that influence birth rates. I personally don't think this is
>the interesting part, rather too close to evolutionary psychology or
>sociobiology for my tastes (and therefore potentially unncessary to have any
>new term). For me, the interesting part is horizontal transmission. After
>all, name me a religion than began through vertical parent to offspring
>transmission- not judaism, not christianity, not islam, not buddhism.
>Indeed, I'd argue that vertical transmission of thought contagia only
>emerges (and cannot be relied upon, hence most religions demand ritual
>behaviours than bring people into contact with proseltyisers e.g. going to
>church), once it has spread horizontally to the majority of a population.
>That's why the Amish aren't going to take over the world- they are
>isolationist and aren't into evangelism or proseltyism, or for that matter
>into holy wars.
>
>
>Finally, I found this statement of yours very interesting:-
>
>'I have some original things to say about important subjects'
>
>hmm... well I'm sure we all think that about ourselves. (The problem is that
>we can't all be correct in thinking that, and it is for others to judge in
>the long run).
Whether or not I actually have original things to say about important
subjects is irrelevant to whether I will permit the notoriety of the word
"meme" for vagueness and definitional controversy to be an obstacle to
communications. What matters is that I think that I have original things to
say. Wether that is an illusory notion or not, I suspect that you will find
it quite common among people who submit scientific books and articles for
publication. Others have spontaneously called my work "original," and my
topics "important," but maybe I will some day find that they were wrong.
Unless and until that happens, I will treat certain word choices as though
they potentially have more than stylistic significance.
I am not interested in expanding the subject to cover plural noun forms or
the quantitative analysis of horizontal versus vertical transmission. (The
latter is covered in my 1998 paper and some post-publication commentary at
http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/UEDerrata_addenda.html.) My only question
relating to my book had to do with wording, and it was an extremely limited
question: Can you find one (and just one) sentence where the word "meme"
was crucial to saying what was said. I don't see such a sentence quoted
above. As it happens, I already feel confident of my ability to rephrase
things said in my book without the word "meme" for three reasons. First, my
unpublished work, including chapters of a more technical book, went without
the word "meme" for a long time before 1988, because I already had a
problem with the definitional vagueness in _The Selfish Gene_. Second,
forthcoming works that do not have the word "meme" have not caused problems
with editors or reviewers. Third, a book that does not use the word "meme"
at all generated only a few mild words of complaint for not citing the meme
literature in an otherwise laudatory review in _New Scientist_ by Paul
Marsden. I think the book (Gladwell's _The Tipping Point_) also received
some good reviews from people who do not use the word "meme." In any case,
I see little to indicate that omitting the word "meme" caused any
communications problems for Gladwell among memeticists or non-memeticists.
Adding to the comment I made below, I will note that if I have to do
considerable extra work in order to use the word "meme," thereby
replicating it into other people's vocabularies, it might be said that the
word "meme" (at least figuratively, if not literally) is parasitizing me,
my works, or my brain. Meme about memes?
> > 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.
--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 - 17:46:57 BST