Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA18459 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 20 Apr 2001 22:51:22 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:50:21 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAEEICCCAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> 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) In-Reply-To: <20010420211159.AAA24528@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.15]> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
The Frontline program did not call the advertising/entertainment industry
memetic engineers: it focused on the mechanics of marketing analysis and
communications.
To my satisfaction, I have a working definition of memes, which I have
shared on this list severaltimes. That definition works for me and supports
the work that I do, and does, I believe, establish a basis for design. It is
not imperative that there be general agreement over this definition. Indeed,
seeking agreement on a definition of meme even within this largely congenial
list would be difficult, yet that should not stop any of us from pursuing
our own inquiries successfully, particularly when they do not require
academic processing. If a consensus does emerge on what a meme is and it is
incompatible with our own working definitions, than those of us with
incompatible definitions can simply change our nomenclature.
- Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
Of Wade T.Smith
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 5:12 PM
To: Memetics Discussion List
Subject: RE: The Status of Memetics as a Science
Hi Lawrence DeBivort -
>The teenagers are not only most easily influenced, they are also flush with
>money given to them by parents who feel guilty for their absence from the
>kids' lives, and so good marketing marks.
But, is it not somewhat dangerous to give those who would prey upon this
ease of influence a new name, 'memetic engineer', (as well as invent the
discipline, 'memetic engineering'), rather than isolate the mechanism
itself, and allow ethics more prevalence over judgment?
Calling a garbageman a sanitation engineer is one thing- calling a
confidence trickster a memetic engineer (or giving solace to anyone
utilizing such techniques in the absence of a stage) is quite another.
- Wade
PS-
>Wade in past conversations has
>disagreed that such engineering is possible
My main objection to 'memetic engineering' is not that, given enough
facts, it is impossible, but that, until we can find, identify, and
isolate this 'meme' thing itself, we can not prompt its design through
technology. (And prompting design through technology is engineering.)
And, in the realm of propaganda, and confidence-trickery, and influence,
the terms and conditions are already in place. Therefore, presenting a
new occupation of 'memetic engineer' is both specious and, IMHO,
unethical. (In legal terms, irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent.) I
personally consider anyone who calls themselves a memetic engineer to be
a fraud.
===============================================================
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 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 Apr 20 2001 - 22:54:40 BST