Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA23033 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 30 Nov 2001 03:45:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: circular logic Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:40:31 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F220Q0uQBnayGkzWkEX00010d9c@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2001 03:40:32.0237 (UTC) FILETIME=[C333A1D0:01C17950] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@ii01.org>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: circular logic
>Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:56:21 +0000
>
>On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:52:43PM -0500, Scott Chase wrote:
> >
> > >> What would it be called if person B saw a set of wheels on person A's
> > >car
> > >> and thinking these wheels really "sweet" person B goes out and
>purchases
> > >a
> > >> set just like them later inspiring person C to do the same (because
> > >these
> > >> wheels are really "sweet") and all of a sudden one sees virtually
>every
> > >car
> > >> on the weekend cruise strip with these very same wheels? Is there
> > >emulation
> > >> or imitation involved here where one person is inspired by another to
> > >buy
> > >> the same set of wheels? Mimicry?
> > >
> > >Mimicry and emulation (assuming there's a difference) both involve
> > >imitation.
> > >
> > You didn't answer my question though? Would the overt behavior whereby
>one
> > person sees wheels that someone else has placed on their car and that
>person
> >
> > goes out and buys the same wheels and places them on their car be
>imitation?
>
>Sorry, I thought it was obvious: yes.
>
>
OK then :-)
But where can we proceed from here? The overt behavior of buying a snazzy
set of wheels has been mimicked, but would prying into the inner workings of
the mindbrains of person A, person B and anybody else this behavior spreads
to add any understanding to analysis of the situation? Would it matter what
mnemons/engrams/L-memes were stored and how they were stored, reduplicated
and mutated within the mindbrains of each subject, if this detailed sort of
knowledge were even possible?
There, in the post-Haeckelian days of developmental biology, was somewhat of
a schism between evolutionary studies and developmental studies. Development
was a "black box". Maybe, if the analogy suffices, internal workings of the
mindbrain can be treated as a black box with regard to the subject matter of
memetics.
In this analogy the memory researchers are the developmental biologists
honing their craft until such time that there can be a mature synthesis of
fields. In this flawed (as they usually are) analogy one wants to avoid an
immature synthesis, because it may lead to simplistic thinking such as that
behind those who forced ill-conceived relations between ontogeny and
phylogeny back in the Haeckelian days.
Keep oil and water apart until they can be emulsified properly, lest one
wind up eating a lousy sandwich. Perhaps the focus of studying culture
should remain on culture and overt behavior. Of course this is coming from
someone who is neither a cultural anthropologist nor a memory researcher.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
===============================================================
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 Nov 30 2001 - 04:02:23 GMT