RE: First Appearances

From: Aaron Lynch (aaron@mcs.net)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 18:17:43 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "speed seduction on tv (uk)"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA00714 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:23:30 +0100
    Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000922232741.01d16600@popmail.mcs.net>
    X-Sender: aaron@popmail.mcs.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
    Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:17:43 -0500
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Aaron Lynch <aaron@mcs.net>
    Subject: RE: First Appearances
    In-Reply-To: <LAW2-OE5UPSIk8LPB5J00000745@hotmail.com>
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1954898==_.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 04:56 PM 9/22/00 +0100, Paul Marsden wrote:
    >Richard:
    >
    >I believe Dawkins first proposed that memes were internal mental
    >information. In The Extended Phenotype he revised his earlier definition
    >from The Selfish Gene. I used a similar definition in Virus of the Mind.
    >Paul:
    >
    >Yes - it is interesting that just as population genetics and molecular
    >genetics are two different models, so too is their a similar symmetry in
    >memetics (population) macro memetics, - and micro memetics that
    >operationalises the concept in a way consistent with the original coining
    >as genes of meaning, semantic nodes in Memory. An error in my opinion
    >would be to conflate the two.
    >
    >You might ask how the latter is Darwinian? Well, the Darwinian theory of
    >creativity involves the mutation, recombination, semanitic drift of
    >networks of genes of meaning to generate original innovations.
    >

    Paul,

    Richard is right to point out that Dawkins gave a clarification in The
    Extended Phenotype, but he had also introduced the word in 1976 by saying
    that "We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea
    of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," later
    explaining that he meant imitation "in the broad sense." I think that the
    context created by the older words mimesis and mimetic may have played a
    role in generating expectations in some that external behaviors should be
    "memes" but internal information should not. The linguistic problem is that
    while one can in principle "coin" the word "mime" to signify a "unit of
    mimesis," the word "mime" is already taken, and assigned meanings outside
    of zoology and biology. So we could not go with a scheme where, for
    instance, an internal behavioral replicator (beliefs, ideas, memory items,
    viewed as "static" or as "processes") could be called a "meme" while an
    external behavioral replicator (visible ways of doing things, of using
    things, etc.) could be called a "mime." But having a mere linguistic quirk
    decide that there should be an "internalist" "memetics" but not an
    "externalist" "mimetics" is not an appropriate way for setting the course
    of scientific disciplines and specializations. Such a terminological
    imbalance (inequity?) may have played an underlying role in the rationale
    for using the same word for quite different kinds of replicators, and hence
    Tim's introduction of L-memes and G-memes--following much discussion,
    paper-writing, commentaries, etc. as many of us can still recall.

    As Wade announced earlier, another dictionary (the Academic Press
    Dictionary of Science and Technology) has come forth with a definition of
    meme, and again added to the great diversity of often contradictory forms
    that have sprung forth from Dawkins's 1976 book. Comparisons to the
    Cambrian explosion come to mind, but that may be a bit exaggerated. I would
    attribute this profusion of definitions not to an inherently high mutation
    rate for definitions, (i.e., low copying fidelity), but rather, to the 1976
    book not explicitly stating an unambiguous definition--despite the book's
    many statements made about memes and ways to use the term. The dictionary
    does seem to be trying to contain the explosion of definitions, but I agree
    with Mark that their effort will probably not result in consensus on what
    the word means.

    To further answer Joe's original question, I am not aware of "L-meme" or
    "G-meme" being used in articles or books, although I have not done a
    thorough search.

    --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 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 09:25:37 BST