Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 17:36:45 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "tracking the HIV/AIDS controversy"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA29915 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:40:31 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.159]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase
    Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:36:45 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F1680rM3TbhyF2fPmsS000050dd@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2001 17:36:45.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[00BCA590:01C0AFD2]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: Re: Toggling nature's auto-erase
    >Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:15:29 +0100
    >
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: Wade T.Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    > >
    > > But meme reduction, while seemingly a good thing- how is it possible?
    >
    >Hi Wade,
    >
    >Just buddin ' in here,
    >
    >Meme reduction may be only possible in the sense of what Vincent said,
    >that is to get rid off the ones we don 't like.
    >It would be " a good thing " in the context of the discussion based on
    >your original post, but * a good thing * overall...I wonder though.
    >If the mind or whatever is capable of selecting of which memes are getting
    >stored and memorized you get IMO still another selection- system along
    >side the genetic and memetic one.
    >In fact you get a system by which memes are selected which in their turn
    >make up the ( memetic) selection- system by which we the hosts may
    >and can " select ". That is IMO to much....looking for the system '
    >behind
    >'
    >the system and so on will push you up the road of the mystical and
    >religion.
    >
    >Best regards,
    >
    >Kenneth
    >
    >( I am, because we are)
    >
    >
    Well...we could approach the problem in several ways.

    The skeptic would ask how something which possibly doesn't exist could be
    reduced. How does one go about reducing what is not there in the first
    place? It would seem like wasted effort...an exercise in tail chasing not
    unlike that undertaken by the dog on the Comedy Channel's new show "TV
    Funhouse".

    Granting that memes do exist, meme *reduction* wouldn't be contradictory
    like meme *elimination* would, since the latter attempt would be a meme in
    itself, succumbing to the trend. I think it was Robin who made the absolute
    versus degrees distinction.

    I haven't had any tattoos or piercings so far. I'm aloof when others are
    discussing the latest episodes of the series "Survivor". I never caved into
    the trend of religiously following Seinfeld, a hopelessly unfunny show. I'm
    doing pretty good at meme reduction.

    Now if I choose not to believe in "memes" the new trend in behavioral
    science...would this be meme reduction?
    _________________________________________________________________
    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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 18 2001 - 17:42:55 GMT