Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA13620 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:35:22 GMT From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: playing at suicide Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:08:09 -0500 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMACEDPCJAA.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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <LAW2-F7wcSBsfnof73a0002009d@hotmail.com> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Thanks. Welcome to the list.
I thought you were on to something in challenging the use of the term
'selfish' with regard to memes (though I would challenge it as well with
regard to genes) and it might be worthwhile picking back up on this
question.
My own view is that things and systems do what they do, and to characterise
any of it as 'selfish' is uselessly to load a connotatively negative
interpretation onto it. Better, IMO, to assess the effects of things. I
understand why Dawkins used the term, and he frames it well in his book, but
the title alone lends itself to mischief.
I tend to see memes not so much as evolutionary agents, surviving on their
'fitness' but as agents that spread beliefs and so shape the behavior and
expectations of society and its members. Memes accomplish this spread in
part due to the content of the belief, and in part due to the way the belief
is expressed linguistically or symbolically.
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Grant Callaghan
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:13 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: playing at suicide
>
>
> >
> >Grant, as a newcomer to this list, you may wish to drop the personal
> >innuendos against Richard. For reasons that are your own, you
> have chosen,
> >for example, to insinuate that Richard is compromised by his business
> >activities. Richard and I don't always agree on everything, but I deeply
> >respect the thinking that he has done, the coherence of his
> views, and his
> >patience in explaining it all here. I suggest you focus on the
> substance of
> >his views and contributions here, and spare us the antagonism and
> >subsequent
> >self-justifications. This might also make it easier for us to attend to
> >your
> >own views.
> >
> >Lawrence
>
> Lawrence, you are quite right. Our conversation got off to a bad
> start when
> Richard's first reply contained an attempt to ridicule my ideas.
> I tended
> to reply in kind and it got out of hand soon after that. I should have
> ignored his jibe and kept my replies more in spirit with the tone of the
> list. As a newby I didn't yet have a good feel for the tone of the
> conversations here. That's an observation, not an excuse. I
> will endeavor
> to play it straighter in the future.
>
> Grant
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.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 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 Jan 12 2002 - 17:42:09 GMT