Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA06720 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:59:31 +0100 Subject: Re: empirical "memetics" Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:55:16 -0400 x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas est veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu> To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20000919175642.AAA24091@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 09/19/00 13:41, William Benzon said this-
>While Martindale nowhere uses the term or concept of "meme" he more than
>makes up for that "deficiency" by providing a great deal of data on the
>evolution of art, mainly poetry and music, but also painting.
Which brings up my very basic, oft-wondered, never answered, query-
Just because something cultural (in this case artistic) changes (changes
from what to what, I wonder internally as subset), can we really say it
is 'evolving'? Again, compared to what? (in the eternal plea of Eddie
Harris and Les McCann....)
Granting the wheel, is the automobile an 'evolution' of the horse
carriage?
Where is the analog of speciation within culture?
And I ask this because, dammit, I don't see it. Improvements and
alterations are not necessarily evolutions, IMHO.
Had Martindale shown that the _reason_ man creates art has evolved over
the eons?
- Wade
===============================================================
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 : Tue Sep 19 2000 - 19:00:52 BST