Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA06923 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:45:32 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:36:22 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Memetic Paradigms Message-ID: <20010330113622.C1013@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200103300013.QAA12658@mail16.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <200103300013.QAA12658@mail16.bigmailbox.com>; from joedees@addall.com on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 04:13:13PM -0800 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 04:13:13PM -0800, Joe Dees wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 09:38:25PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> They are not isolable atoms, like genes,
> >> because their existence includes their relations; memes
> >> necessarily relate to other memes, and these relations is part and
> >> parcel of what constitutes the significances of the memes.
> >
> >Genes, generally, are highly interdependent too. What proportion
> >of our genes, do you think, is *directly* concerned with replicating
> >itself, rather than supporting a cluster, for which a few will
> >arrange the replication of all?
> >
> None, actually. Since genes lack subjectivity, they cannot be said
> to be concerned with anything.
Deliberate obtuseness impresses nobody, Joe.
> The point is that the A G C and T of which genes are comprised are kinda
> like the letters of the alphabet, or better yet, phonemes; which are
> combined to represent meanings (words, but even more basic, morphemes),
> but in and of themselves, they are meaningless. A multiplicity of
> components are required to configure into an informational pattern.
> Certain traits that are distinguishable, yet cannot stand on their own
> separate from others, such as furred-ness, feathered-ness, bipedality,
> quadrapedality, etc., are comparable to morphemes such as -s or -es
> for pluralization (or silent, in some cases, like deer), or other
> prefixes, suffixes and roots (anti-, con- -tion, etc.). They, in turn,
> are comprised of gene clusters, where specific genes can only perform a
> function in the context of the gestalt of the cluster, just as phonemes
> symbolize nothing (except in the cases where a ! mo! rpheme is comprised
> of a single phoneme, and perhaps there are gene - gene-cluster analogies
> here, too) but tepresent the smallest atom of auditorily detectable
> and palate-constructable speech differentiation from other phonemes,
> just as the gene elements A G C and T represent the smallest atoms of
> chromosome differentiation.
In other words, you agree that genes are just as interdependent as memes
after all. You have done a complete about-face.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 30 2001 - 11:57:55 BST