RE: Wimsatt on memes at the Uni Pittsburgh

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Oct 20 2000 - 11:51:41 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "pub discussions"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00478 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:53:53 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745AA6@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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:51:41 +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
    

            Hi William,

            Thanks for the comments (and the refs. in the other post).
    >
    >
    >I'm not so much concerned about those theoretical frameworks--I
    agree with
    >you, they're weak--but with the raw stuff that those frameworks are
    meant to
    >explain. Consider, for example, Spike Lee's current movie
    _Bamboozled_. The
    >movie has a documentary side to it, with lots of film clips and
    photos from
    >the history of film and minstrelsey. One might call these "memes."
    And, of
    >course, there are books about film history, about the images of
    African
    >Americans in films, and there are books about minstrelsey, etc. The
    people
    >who wrote those books had to do research on the memes they talk
    about.

    >I don't see memeticists reading and talking about those kinds of
    books, nor
    >doing any research into the primary artifacts on which such books
    are based.
    >Judging from the published memetics literature and from
    conversations on
    >this list, it seems unlikely to me that a card-carrying memeticist
    would
    >bother to get his or her hands dirty with the basic stuff of
    culture.

    I think this may be because some see such external artefacts as simply
    exemplars of a particular process, such that the specifics of any artefact
    aren't as interesting as that process. So, for example, those who studying
    cognition and learning of language aren't necessarily concerned with which
    language is learned, but how language is learned. For some, memetics is
    similar in that external elements are merely indicators of the process at
    work, and aren't necessarily interesting in and of themselves. For example,
    Aaron Lynch's book uses lots of examples of particular religious beliefs and
    practices, not because they're interesting in and of themselves, although
    they may be, but because they're illustrative of his notion of the
    epidemiology of ideas.

    >Long before Darwin came along there were naturalists who went out
    and looked
    >at plants and animals and made collections of them and classifed
    them and
    >quarreled about classification, etc. And of course Darwin himself
    did a lot
    >of work like that. Well, there are lots of people who do the same
    kind of
    >thing with paintings and poems and sonatas and flying buttresses
    and
    >Jacquard looms, etc. But memeticists do not avail themselves of
    this
    >"natural history" of cultural stuff, of memes.

    I think you're right here that more needs to be done, and in some fields has
    been done, to record and classify cultural phenomena, but one of the
    problems I think has been that the most prominent works on memetics so far
    have been to varying degrees 'popular science' books where that kind of
    empirical rigour isn't really the goal. The goal is more about presenting
    and elucidating an idea/theory with illustrative examples, rather than via
    highly detailed retrodictive analysis.

    >Like I said, it's not the "knowledge" I'm concerned about. It's
    the raw
    >data. Memetics seems to be mostly a coffee-klatcsh for theorists
    who wish
    >to remain unsullied by observations. Orthodox memetics is a genre
    of
    >science fiction.

    Well, it's blue skies research and theorising. Maybe it'll turn out to to
    have been a huge mistake on all our parts for even considering it, maybe
    it'll be the making of something significant. Until we start operationally
    researching its claims we won't know either way for certain. (After all
    cloning was science fiction until a couple of years ago, and now we're not
    far way from having bodies to use for spare parts, although all the
    moralists will no doubt stop us doing that).

    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 : Fri Oct 20 2000 - 11:55:24 BST