Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA18598 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:23:14 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal culture Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:19:21 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F153bdkSmLAztxc1o8y000125e6@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2001 14:19:21.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[57AF0BE0:01C0F1B8] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Ray Recchia <rrecchia@mail.clarityconnect.com>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal
>culture
>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:29:15 -0400
>
>At 11:02 AM 6/8/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
> >>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >>Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal
> >>culture
> >>Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:23:21 -0400
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
> >>>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >>>To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >>>Subject: Re: USA Today - interview with Gugatkin and de Waal on animal
> >>>culture
> >>>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:37:05 -0400
> >>>
> >>>On 06/08/01 09:12, Scott Chase said this-
> >>>
> >>> >The big problem would not be
> >>> >in using the word "culture", but employing this term in a way that
> >>> >anthropocentrically places humans within a charmed circle, removed
>from
> >>>the
> >>> >"lowly" animals.
> >>>
> >>>Granted, but, that anthropocentricity is where the meaning of 'culture'
> >>>_came_ from, not the realms of behaviorism or biology. (Well, 'culture'
> >>>in biology means something quite different, although, yeah, the
> >>>Backstreet Boys and MTV are sorts of germs, in their own way....)
> >>>
> >>Well, I'm grappling with this word "culture" and trying to see it in
> >>different lights, thinking WAY outside the box and trying to clip the
> >>pro-human biased roots. I could forgive you for mentioning behaviorism,
> >>but
> >>I could have done without another exposure to the "Backstreet Boys"
>virus
> >>this early in the morning.
> >>>
> >>>Culture can easily become 'artistic behavior', 'social behavior',
>'tribal
> >>>behavior', etc, with no harm to its roots, its expression, or its
> >>>homology.
> >>>
> >>Maybe sticking with the baseline of "non-genetic behavioral
>transmission"
> >>would be the better option and then working from there one might
>consider
> >>all the possible variations on this theme, "memes" included.
> >>
> >>Culture does have some deep seated human connotations when applied to
> >>behavior.
> >>>
> >>>Yes?
> >>>
> >>I dunno. I'll see what develops on this thread and go from there.
> >>>
> >>>Shouldn't we leave culture in its petri dish?
> >>>
> >>Well there's a difference between microbial populations living in
>cultural
> >>media (maybe we should leave media to the microbiologists too?...sorry
> >>Vincent) and the phenomenon of "non-genetic behavioral transmission" or
>the
> >>more typical charmed circle of "accumulated knowledge, customs, beliefs,
> >>arts, and other human products that are socially transmitted over the
> >>generations" (from page 756 of the Campbell, Mitchell, and Reece's
> >>_Biology:
> >>Concepts & Connections_. 1997. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. New York).
>This
> >>comes from an introductory biology text.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >My microbiology text (Brock, Madigan, Martinko, and Parker's _Biology of
> >Microorganisms_. 1994. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ) defines
>culture
> >in terms of a strain in a medium where the microbial population in a
>medium
> >definition I used above comes from Tammy S Race Mc Cormick's _The
>Essentials
> >of Microbiology_ (1995. Research and Education Association. Piscataway,
>NJ).
> >Both books cast media in terms of nutrient solution or broth.
> >
> >I wonder how media studies defines "media".
> >
>
>In 'The Imitation Factor' Dugatkin cites to a paper which found 164
>different definitions of culture. A.L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn,
>"Culture,
>a critical review of the concepts and definitions", American Archeology and
>Ethnology 47:1-223 (1952)
>
>
>
Well there are and have been several definitions of the "gene" (see
Griffiths and Neumann-Held, 1999). There's an "evolutionary gene" concept
and a "molecular gene" concept. The molecular gene concept has a couple
variations of its own (eg- classical, contemporary, and molecular process).
There's also the "classical Mendelian".
-Griffiths PE and Neumann-Held EM. 1999. The many faces of the gene.
BioScience (49): 656-662
_________________________________________________________________
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 Jun 10 2001 - 15:27:01 BST