Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2001 - 19:35:49 GMT

  • Next message: lhousego@axa.com.au: "Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA13086 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:38:37 GMT
    Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny
    Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:35:49 -0500
    x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <20010121193405.AAA28882@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.176]>
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi Joe E. Dees --

    >Meme as sperm, ayy? That's why I highlighted disSEMINate.

    And I was and am totally aware of that.

    >But
    >I was speaking of the roles of propagator and recipient; clearly
    >there is a yang/yin complementarity there.

    Yup, as there has to be, if we accept male as meaning 'giver' and female
    as meaning 'taker'. Part of nature.

    >However, as regards
    >the meme, what's IN sperm? Why, GENES, of course.

    Here I did not make myself clear. Yes, there is a component of 'me' (or
    of you, or whoever) that I want to get into you, in a memetic sense. That
    it is there, however, is not a memetic happenstance at all. But I need a
    way to get it to you. In most natures, straight imitation and genetic
    development can lead to instructional learning- I can show you how to do
    something. That's basic, and cascades down several species levels. But, I
    need a special and unique carrier to present, offer, and have you accept
    and contain an idea of mine, and that _carrier_ is what I'm calling the
    meme, not the idea- not the sperm, if you will, at all. The 'sperm' is a
    naturally occuring artifact of mind- we are the most creative animal.
    But, to get that artifact transferred to you, I have need of much more
    than just the map of it that language or natural behavior might
    communicate.

    (Of course, some carriers function and others do not, or some are better
    than others, or some are directed at specific targets, or some run smack
    dab into barriers, etc.)

    I need an additional cultural tool, which, for me at the moment, is all
    the meme needs to be, since I see no need to introduce that component at
    any other function of communication or imitation or imagined culture or
    creation, e.g. at the level of birdsong, which can (and does, IMHO) get
    along and on its way just fine without memes. If a bird used a flute to
    transmit its song, that would be memetic. But it doesn't....

    So, no, in quite disquieting fact, I'm much more looking at the meme as
    the penis, not the sperm.

    Which means, yes, I'm quite definitely moving away, not only from any
    desire to find a neural meme, but from any need for a neural meme at all.

    And once again, I'm knocking at the doors of perception and aesthetics,
    which is where I started, which is where this thing called memetics
    seemed to want to fit, somewhere between Aristotle and McLuhan.

    But, I'm used to being called a putz....

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 21 2001 - 19:40:17 GMT