Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA22164 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:59:35 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:02:13 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase Message-ID: <3AB11FC5.17733.16F0E22@localhost> In-reply-to: <F205RzpPWywCP6K8CAC00001da3@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 15 Mar 2001, at 20:05, Scott Chase wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: RE: Toggling nature's auto-erase
> >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:23:30 -0500
> >
> >On 03/14/01 05:40, Vincent Campbell said this-
> >
> > >From a memetics point of view, this whole area is very interesting.
> > > Do memes work because they are attuned to the range of sensory
> > >inputs that
> >our
> > >filtering mechanisms allow into normal consciousness? Is that why
> > >when a colleague of mine kept singing a snippet of 'quando, quando,
> > >quando' ,
> >and I
> > >then had it banging around my head for days? (If you know it,
> > >apologies,
> >as
> > >I bet it'll be going round your head later today.)
> >
> >One has to know the tune, firstly, or hear it. "Quando, quando,
> >quando" is totally unreferenced in my head, and so, no, it entered
> >and left with dispatch. On the other hand, I've been carrying around,
> >intentionally, the little tune that Jan Hammer wrote for the humorous
> >portions of the Miami Vice episode called 'Phil the Shill', which was
> >on TNN last night. Before that, I was intentionally wandering around
> >with Bill Frisell's 'What Do We Do' between my virtual ears.
> >
> >Why? Because I like 'em.
> >
> >Memes do seem to work as filters, and I'm beginning to see them as
> >only this- immediate indexers of perceptions. There is something
> >about the ideas of surrealism that have always attracted me in this
> >regard -
> >
> >"(Surrealism) declares that it is able, by its own means, to uproot
> >thought from an increasingly cruel state of thralldom, to steer it
> >back onto the path of total comprehension, return it to its original
> >purity." - Andre Breton
> >
> >- to the point of which I have declared, manifesto-like, "To a life
> >without memes!" which, to me, is a utopian and ideal state, as I have
> >increasingly begun to see memetic processes as artificial and
> >manipulistic, as I have certainly seen the motivations of those who
> >profess to be 'memetic engineers' as faintly if at all divorced from
> >propagandists.
> >
> >The idea needs to come first. If one puts spin on it and calls that
> >spin 'memetic engineering', the idea is lost. It is up to religions
> >and laws to so something ethically useful with it at that point....
> >
> >"Let us not mince words: the marvelous is always beautiful. Anything
> >marvelous is beautiful, in fact only the marvelous is beautiful."
> >Andre Breton, 1924
> >
> >If memetics has anything to do with distorting the beautiful, it is
> >false.
> >
Memetics does tend to narrow our vision, but here there can be a
trading off of breadth for depth. The lantern can shine farther into
the dark if a reflector shines both halves of its light in the same
direction. Likewise, the canalizing of our perceptions or attentions
allows for more penetrating depth at the cost of some plasticity;
isn't that what specialization's all about?
===============================================================
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 : Fri Mar 16 2001 - 02:01:57 GMT