Re: this list & gene/meme

From: SNJASA@aol.com
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 16:01:38 GMT

  • Next message: Gatherer, D. (Derek): "RE: MIT research reports rats dream of mazes"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA01209 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:05:19 GMT
    From: <SNJASA@aol.com>
    Message-ID: <f8.6e3a70c.27a1a7e2@aol.com>
    Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:01:38 EST
    Subject: Re: this list & gene/meme
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: Unknown sub 104
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    I've no formal background in memetics but have followed these discussions
    with great interest for some time. What Chris said here precipitated a sort
    of Zen koan breakthrough for me in thinking about thinking about thinking
    about...things. What I can't quite make out is whether what I'm experiencing
    is a sort of infinite regress, eternal recurrence, or something else
    altogether. If I have whirled off the end of the map here, please disregard.

    All Best,

    Betty

    In a message dated 01/24/2001 11:49:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    ddiamond@ozemail.com.au writes:

    << I think these 'discussions' between myself and, in particular,=
      Joe, Aaron, and Vincent, show a fundamental distinction at work=
      namely that of SAMENESS vs DIFFERENCE.
     
     SAMENESS thinking is like-mindedness thinking where a shared=
      context (i.e. same language, education level, social elements,=
      ontologies etc) acts as a source of security. This context will=
      force the emergence of paranoia etc when you introduce=
      DIFFERENCE into to it.
     
     Vincent has commented on my criticism of all disciplines as=
      manifesting a degree of 'madness' and his comments reflect the=
      reaction to DIFFERENCE.
     
     My approach does not criticise disciplines other than the=
      assertion that they express 'facts' when they are more localised=
      metaphors used to describe object (WHAT)/relationships(WHERE)=
      patterns. In that context their 'truths' are always qualified.=
      (When taken literally this is not the case, the 'truths' are=
      expressed as if 'real'.)
     
     In the context of genetics/memetics, there is a general feeling=
      applied to this dichotomy where the 'gene' is more 'solid', more=
      'object', something tangable, whereas 'meme' is more=
      'relationships' in that it is intangable, composed of 'wind'=
      such that memes can share the same space, unlike genes (to some=
      degree; code sharing is possible)
     
     Thus a meme can consist of other memes in that the intangable=
      characteristics allow for many memes to share the same space.=
      This characteristic is a property of relational space where, for=
      example, complex emotional expressions (memes?) can be made-up=
      of blending more basic emotional expressions; you get into the=
      concept of superpositions and wave forms.
     
     I have emphasised before re memes, to get through ANY wall, real=
      or imagined, you need to use waves and it is memes that do this=
      in that they get through our object oriented filtering systems=
      (emphasis on the PARTICULAR, EXPLICIT). Thus a meme is expressed=
      as that irritating 'jingle' in your head that has soaked-in over=
      a few days of exposure.
     
     Now think of this in the form of 'murky' arguement. A GENERAL but=
      murky arguement can work the same way as a 'jingle' in that=
      pockets of LOCAL data seep into the perceiver's mind over time=
      -- like the emergence of a wave pattern from firing electrons at=
      two slits in a wall. The emerging wave pattern reflects a hidden=
      element where all of the 'independent' electrons suddenely seem=
      'linked together'.
     
     This process reflects insight, intuition etc and is a=
      characteristic of object/relationship thinking to a degree where=
      you can structure arguements in this way. What happens is that=
      the frustration caused acts to intensify the association making,=
      the drive to identify clearly "what could that be?". Eventually=
      this can lead to the 'Ah-HA!' experience, an experience long=
      remembered than learning from spoon-feeding.
     
     best,
     
     Chris.
     
     
    >>

    ===============================================================
    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 Jan 25 2001 - 16:07:13 GMT