RE: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 18 2000 - 13:40:54 BST

  • Next message: William Benzon: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #413"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA24369 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:43:17 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745A9F@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh
    Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:40:54 +0100
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >> Theories of cultural evolution need to pay much more attention
    than we
    >> have to the fine structure of ideas and cultural practices of the
    sort
    >> studied by humanists, historians, and anthropologists. This
    isn't just
    >> a conciliatory gesture: the possibility of having generative
    systems
    >> which transmit and maintain myriad fine details is crucial to
    what it is
    >> to have a culture, a symbolic system, and intentionality.

    >I certainly agree with this. One of the reasons I cannot take
    memetics
    >seriously is that no card-carrying memeticist seems to know much of
    anything
    >about culture, nor seems to have any interest in learning. It's
    all just
    >self-involved recirculating chatter about mental memes.

    Oooh, fighting words these! :-)

    Of course this statement assumes there is given knowledge about culture that
    in some way memeticists (or those interested in memetics) lack.

    However, the range of disciplines that have considered issues and questions
    about culture (such as anthropology, psychology, cultural studies, and my
    own field of media studies to name but a few) have often produced completely
    stupid and obtuse theories about culture, such that there is still much for
    any and all disciplines to learn about culture- so much that pouring scorn
    on those taking the memetic approach doesn't really help anybody. Certainly
    the inference that memeticists don't want to learn anything should not be
    based on the contents of this list, and is highly disingenuous to those who
    have invested time and effort into researching culture in this way.

    After all, at a superficial level, everyone knows something about culture
    because we all live in (at least) one. Despite many years of research, its
    questionable just how far beyond experiential knowledge of culture other
    disciplines have gone.

    So what exactly is it that isn't known about culture by memeticists?

    I have stated ad infinitum about the deficiences of awareness of media
    theory in memetics- but note theory not knowledge, and I don't equate that
    with the memetics theorists not wanting to learn. If you're similarly
    positing that memeticists are unaware of existing theoretical frameworks for
    evaluating culture that already exist in other disciplines, then I'd concur.

    If however, you're saying that there is given knowledge that memeticists not
    only don't know but don't want to know, then I'd have to disagree
    profoundly, in terms of both the existence of given knowledge (there isn't
    any), and the attitudes of memeticists (those of whom I've read, and
    conversed with via this list, have all shown a clear interest in learning,
    as far as I'm concerned).

    Vincent

    ===============================================================
    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 Oct 18 2000 - 13:44:44 BST