Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Sun Feb 04 2001 - 15:17:40 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA04048 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:12:01 GMT
    Message-ID: <001f01c08ec1$8ce93560$6708bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <20010121193405.AAA28882@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.176]>
    Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny
    Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:17:40 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Hi all,

    Same argument to boost in again, checkin' out my posts...

    Are organs of expression of the male part kinda a stamen or penis and the
    organs or reception kinda female and pistil or vagina...!?
    Are we talking here once again over the possibility that there is a gender
    bias for memes !?
    Last time we talked about this we almost marched to war...is the time ripe
    for a second trial...!?

    Kenneth

    ( I am, because we are) at 162

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wade T.Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    To: Memetics Discussion List <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:35 PM
    Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny

    > 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 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 Feb 04 2001 - 15:18:58 GMT