Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA12332 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:53:18 +0100 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:39:59 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Memetic Paradigms Message-ID: <20010331143959.C478@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200103300013.QAA12658@mail16.bigmailbox.com>; <20010330113622.C1013@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AC48229.9444.16BB2D@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AC48229.9444.16BB2D@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:55:05PM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:55:05PM -0600, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2001, at 11:36, Robin Faichney 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.
> >
> So why do you continuously employ it?
Point to one instance.
> > In other words, you agree that genes are just as interdependent as
> > memes after all. You have done a complete about-face.
> >
> No, genes are NOT as interdependent as memes. The genes for
> brown eyes are not connected whatsoever to male pattern
> baldness, yet all meanings, as mutually correlatively defining, are
> intertwined in the semiotic web, also referred to as the vicious
> hermeneutic circle.
That's just rhetoric. It's just as valid for me to say that all
genes are connected as for you to say all meanings are connected.
Both generalisations are so vast as to be almost meaningless. But I
wouldn't claim that any meaning can stand alone, while you claimed that
genes are "isolable atoms". Do you stand by that, or retract it?
-- 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 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 14:56:07 BST