RE: The Demise of a Meme

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2001 - 09:31:01 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: The Demise of a Meme"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA00941 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:20:28 +0100
    From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme
    Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:31:01 +1000
    Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEDJCPAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Importance: Normal
    In-Reply-To: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF230010D1B7B@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
    X-RBL-Warning: (orbs.dorkslayers.com) 203.2.192.81 is listed by dorkslayers.com
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Gatherer, D. (Derek)
    > Sent: Monday, 26 March 2001 4:48
    > To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
    > Subject: RE: The Demise of a Meme
    >
    >
    > >Science, however, is not theatrical
    >
    > Oh, it is, I'm afraid. There are some great performers out
    > there, and also
    > some great producers who are not performers but direct expertly
    > from behind
    > the scenes. There are Oscars (Nobels), auditions, something very like a
    > studio system (Oxbridge, Stanford etc) and even on occasion, gulp, casting
    > couches.....
    >

    yes .. heard a comment from someone re Hawking and his book re time. Comment
    was that the book was not science .. it was a romance novel describing
    Hawking's relationship with the universe...

    Any form of distortion/exageration has theatrical tones. Theatre is usually
    more about people than objects and as such emphasises emotion, refined
    feelings, subtle nuances, but substitution is possible...

    From a neurological/cognitive perspective the emphasis is on cardinality
    over ordinality where cardinality is linked to topology, twisting, turning
    etc more 'right' brained, precision is 'approximate' and pattern detection
    favoured. Ordinality is more 'left' brained. The interaction allows the
    cardinality bias to be zoomed-in upon to get details and out of that emerges
    discreteness that can then be used as feedback to 'refine' the cardinal
    perspective. The topological emphasis allows for the brain to adapt to any
    'extremes', it is extremely flexible at birth. 'Left' thinking develops as
    we develop language and a sense of self and so ordinality takes over and the
    cardinal 'side' is specialised into context relationships, metaphor
    encode/decoding etc and that is where theatre comes in in the form of
    *implicit* social comments etc and there is a social emphasis in Science
    expressed in the institutions of science. Academia politics could do well as
    a daytime TV soap!

    In the sense of social interactions we are 'talking' topological processes
    where a specific culture goes through twists and turns, stretching and
    shrinking, but underneath the 'same'. Thus topological processes reflect
    'wholes' at work, dynamic processes working within but the distinction is
    not broken, the linkage of 'everthing is linked together' is maintained, the
    links get distorted/exagerated etc. It takes the ordinal to 'cut', implying
    that the ordinal is derived from the cardinal, particular from general, and
    when you look at development of species that seems to be supported with only
    us being the 'super-ordinals' :-)

    Wasnt 'cold fusion' theatre?... that said isnt the intent of Science to
    identify the formulas and algorithms behind expressions, to get the STEPS
    that lead to the expression? The problem is the theatrical elements --
    russian genetics suffered due to theatre, and that was theatre where the
    stars were scientists (or one in particular and the rest tried to avoid
    being shot? -- more theatre).

    Show biz - what fun!

    Chris.
    ------------------
    Chris Lofting
    websites:
    http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
    List Owner: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis

    ===============================================================
    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 Mar 26 2001 - 09:22:58 BST