Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA14121 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:48:32 GMT User-Agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.0 (1513) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:46:03 -0500 Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? From: William Benzon <bbenzon@mindspring.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <B68741F9.690F%bbenzon@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <20010114152449.A2152@reborntechnology.co.uk> 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
on 1/14/01 10:24 AM, Robin Faichney at robin@reborntechnology.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 08:42:10AM -0500, William Benzon wrote:
>> on 1/12/01 4:57 PM, Robin Faichney at robin@reborntechnology.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:42:42AM -0500, William Benzon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Their favorite stories seem to be about religion and cultures. And the
>>>> stories they tell indicate that they have a very shallow conception of
>>>> human
>>>> nature and society. The orthodox memetic position is that the most
>>>> important thing about religion is that it is irrational. That's what they
>>>> want to explain. How do they explain it? By saying those pesky memes are
>>>> working juju on the minds of otherwise unsuspecting adults.
>>>>
>>>> That's a pathetic explanation. It tells me these people simply do not have
>>>> any deep conception of human nature. They aren't interested in explaining
>>>> human behavior. Rather, they want to explain it away by palming it off on
>>>> memes.
>>>
>>> I think you're absolutely right regarding that "explanation" of religion
>>> and the people who propound it. But I'd like to see you try to back up
>>> your claim that it's "the orthodox memetic position".
>>
>> Are you suggesting that Dawkins, Dennett, Lynch, & Blackmore have something
>> else to say on the matter?
>
> Given Blackmore's commitment to Buddhism, I think it safe to assume she
> does NOT belong in that camp.
Given her chapter on "Religons as memeplexes" in her book I'd say she pretty
much does.
> Of the others, Dawkins is the only one that
> I know does. But whatever, there is very little that can reasonably be
> considered "orthodox memetics" --
Yeah, I'm no doubt over-stating my case. From my point of view, everyone
who believes in memes in the head is an orthdox memeticist. Of course,
that's a pretty large and diverse group of people. That means that Derek
Gatherer and I and a few others are not adherents to this bit of orthodoxy.
> that, surely, is one of its weaknesses.
> I'd suggest that you succumb to the temptation to take the worst as
> typical due to your anti-memetic prejudice. This is an extremely
> successful meme, to be found just about anywhere there's any prejudice,
> whatsoever, even when it means imagining concensus where there's none.
I would suggest that before you make any more silly statements about why I
say what I do that you do me the courtesy of taking the time to read my
technical discussions of cultural evolution. I am certainly opposed to the
notion of memes in the head, but not to the idea of memes as such, and that
is the position I've taken in my published work. In particular:
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.
In neither of those articles do I reject the concept of memes or of a
Darwinian evolutionary process in the cultural realm. But I do object to
the idea of memes in the head and I explain why I do so. As I have given my
reasons in earlier discussions on this list I have no intention of doing so
again.
>
> By the way, as far as I'm concerned, that memetic way of talking is
> just that: a way of talking. At this level, that of the specific
> meme, it has no significant explanatory power. Much better, most
> times, to use psychology, etc. So I'm on your side in this. But the
> fundamentals of memetics are useful at a higher level of abstraction.
> It provides a way of thinking in objective terms
In what way is loose talk "objective"?
> about recurring patterns
> of non-genetically-determined behaviour. As far as I'm aware, there is
> no alternative to it, in this.
You've got to be kidding. Do you really mean this? Or, rather, just what
do you mean?
> Though I'd be fascinated to learn of any.
===============================================================
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 : Sun Jan 14 2001 - 16:50:10 GMT