Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA16676 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:51:46 GMT From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Three Scientists and Their Gods Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:16:33 -0500 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAEEADCKAA.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: <JJEIIFOCALCJKOFDFAHBIECLEDAA.richard@brodietech.com> 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
I agree with Richard.
The term "meme" has served some of us well (not that those who find it
useful necessarily agree on all its aspects :-) ) and it seems
unnecessarily time-consuming and circuitous to adopt another word instead,
and then spend our time defining it to distinguish, e.g., between 'general
replicators' and 'memetic replicators.' Many will find what I am about to
say as undeservedly optimistic, but in my view we have developed the core
theory of memetics, and should now be on to exploring its ramifications for
sister sciences (e.g. information and communications, sociology, evolution,
systems theory, political science, history, brain neurology, etc.) There
lies ahead of us much to be discovered, and many insights useful to
ourselves and others to be generated. Who will move in this direction?
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Richard Brodie
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:43 AM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Three Scientists and Their Gods
>
>
> <<I have been thinking about Aaron's idea that we should dispose of the
> word meme, and call them replicators. >>
>
> Well, we already DO call replicators "replicators." The meme, as settled
> upon by Dawkins and Dennett anyway, is a replicator based in the mind. I
> think everyone agrees the (mental) meme is not the only cultural
> replicator.
> It's just such a neat word I think people want to use it to refer to
> whatever replicator they're fascinated by. Much of the historical
> traffic on
> this list has been of that nature. Prof. Tim proposed "L-meme" (should
> really be "D-meme" for the originator of the definition) for a mental
> replicator and "G-meme" for an artifactual one. In my book I called the
> former "meme" out of respect to Dawkins and Dennett and spent
> much paper on
> discussion of complex replicators---similar to Bloom's
> "superorganisms"---that make use of minds and memes for their growth and
> persistence. I called those "viruses of the mind" and did and do
> find them a
> more fascinating study than individual memes, which as many have
> pointed out
> are invisible, intangible, and difficult to study. They are conceptually
> cool, however.
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 16:59:44 GMT