Re: Defining and moving on

From: William Benzon (bbenzon@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 00:31:23 BST

  • Next message: Brent Silby: "Re: Defining and moving on"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA13034 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 26 Oct 2000 00:31:55 +0100
    User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513)
    Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:31:23 -0400
    Subject: Re: Defining and moving on
    From: William Benzon <bbenzon@mindspring.com>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Message-ID: <B61CE58B.538C%bbenzon@mindspring.com>
    In-Reply-To: <035f01c03ec0$5413ca80$a921e7d8@proftim>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    > From: "Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org>
    > Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:15:27 -0700
    > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    > Subject: Defining and moving on
    >
    > William Benzon wrote:
    >
    > <<<If you don't have a grasp of the data to be accounted for nor of the
    > causal processes and mechanisms, then you just haggle over definitions.
    > In my experience, serious thinkers don't waste time over definitions.
    > Where the issues are well understood, thinkers may give definitions by
    > way of indicating which (among several well-known) position they
    > take.>>>
    >
    > I have the sense that most of us are using the same concepts, but under
    > different names. There are many reasons for this (and too many of them
    > are surprisingly petty or political), but I think it could be a useful
    > exercise to lay out all the differing terms and compare them. I suspect
    > we'll find we share more concepts more in common than we disagree.

    Well, I do think you're somewhat right in this. For a number of you it's
    just a matter of terminological squabbles with no really substantive
    differences. However your A, B, C below is not at all adequate to my
    conception of these matters, no matter what terms you use.
    >
    > So here's a start, I call:
    >
    > A) the external vehicle by which memetic information is passed: the
    > G-meme.
    > B) the internal information necessary for propagating the cultural
    > information: the L-meme.
    > C) the combination of internal and external that results in
    > replication: the meme

    There's nothing in here that corresponds to the cultural correlate of the
    biological species, and nothing really that corrsponds to the environment in
    which species must compete for survival. As far as I'm concerned, without
    those entities in your model, it's an absolute non-starter.

    Therefore, from my POV any and all discussion toward straightening out the
    terms for that set of items is just a waste of time. It's like adopting a
    Ptolemaic model of the solar system and arguing over whether to call the
    moon Fritz or Freddie. Who cares?

    Now, my verison of these things isn't something that I can readily pack into
    email-sized snippits, so I won't bother. If you're curious, you can find an
    exposition here:

    Culture as an Evolutionary Arena. Journal of Social and Evolutionary
    Systems, 19(4), 321-362, 1996.

    Culture's Evolutionary Landscape: A Reply to Hans-Cees Speel. Journal of
    Social and Evolutionary Systems, 20(3), 314-322, 1997.

    My book on music will have rather more to say on the issue, though it won't
    be out until next year.

    ===============================================================
    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 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 00:33:27 BST