Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA09605 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:23:07 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C89@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:22:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Age-wise, I'm a member of generation x, and I can't say Casablanca quotes
play as big a part in 'our" lives (I'm not sure there's a genuine
collectivity there), as, say, quotes from 'Star Wars'....
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Scott Chase
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:00 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
> >Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:21:02 +0000
> >
> > > some blinking asshole said it wrong
> >
> >Yeah, that's true, but the 'why did it do so well' part is still
> >interesting. I think the fact that the selective world is changing very
> >fast is useful here, because some things survive despite the changes in
> >circumstances (for instance, 'snafu' is dying out with the generation
> >who used it, but 'play it again sam' isn't).
> >
> I'm trying to think of the last time I heard someone I know use the phrase
>
> "play it again Sam". I can't off the top of my head recall this, but as a
> caveat I don't get out much :-)
>
> Has anyone else heard this phrase used? Is it popular within the so-called
>
> "Generation X" entity? How prevalent is this phrase amogst various pockets
>
> of societies world wide? Any hard data on this?
>
> Maybe it was a matter of a non-apadtive change in the phrase from the
> original being propagated at the expense of accuracy. Why would fitness be
>
> necessarily involved or OTOH is fitness sufficient to cover "memetic"
> phenomena?
> >
> >It all comes down to how
> >effectively the thing (tune, idiom, whatever) taps into the generic
> >themes of a culture. More generic -> more flexibility of application /
> >less incompatibilities with resident memes (details) -> higher chance of
> >long term success.
> >
> >
> I could see how something previously compatible or even neutrally benign
> might become incompatible with a shift in the "memetic" landscape. The
> behavior of smoking tobacco in public places has shifted from "cool" or
> fashionable to downright disgusting or offensive in some circumstances
> (nice
> restaraunts), though I still find myself breathing in secondhand smoke in
> bars or clubs.
>
> Nonetheless, I think it a mistake to automatically shoehorn cultural
> phenomena in analogous references to biological terms such as fitness,
> heritability &c. BTW what's the story with "&c"? Why is "etc." preferred?
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Mon Feb 19 2001 - 14:25:29 GMT