Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA02768 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:13:57 GMT Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:09:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200201280609.g0S69gp19600@mail21.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [65.80.160.154] From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Meme bonding Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:32:57 +0800
> memetics@mmu.ac.uk Stephen Springette <tramont@iinet.net.au> Re: Meme bondingReply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>Actually, this "bonding" between memes is better explained from a semiotic
>perspective. To this end, the "Law of association of habits", as outlined
>by Charles Sanders Peirce, is instructive. That is, associative learning is
>regarded as a most fundamental dynamic of any consciousness, and it is
>associative learning that provides the "bonding" between signs (memes).
>This is part of the reason that I have departed away from memetics, towards
>semiotics.
>
>Imitation is regarded by many memeticists as the basis for human culture.
>But by incorporating associative learning as the fundamental principle, it
>becomes clear that imitative learning is a subset of associative learning.
>That is, imitation is one of the mechanisms by which memes are selected and
>associated together.
>If you are leaving memetics for semiotic, it can only be because you do not understand either one. They are, in fact, complementary. Semiotics is the study of signs, which are meaningful entities, by virtue of representing rather than presenting; that is, they stand for some entity other than themselves. The defining characteristic of a sign is it's ABOUTNESS. Semiotics is subdivided into semantics (the relation between the sign and what it signifies), syntactics (the relations between signs in a sign system), and pragmatics (the relation between the sign and its users, you and me). Signification has a threefold structure (sigh, signified, signifier). Semiotics is a structural discipline, that is, it is static and synchronic, and can give us really sharp snapshots, but cannot give us functionalities. Memetics, on the other hand, is like a blurry movie. It studies how these meaning structures proliferate between signifiers, and is dynamic and diachronic. It is impos!
sible, for instance, to incorporate evolution within the rubric of semiotics, if it is being done properly (and a lot of it isn't). You need memetics for that. As I said before; these two disciplines are complementary; each contributes something that the other cannot, thus combining them in a study maximises one's chances of grokking one's object - which is why it makes no sense to leave one for the other.
>
>
>At 06:56 27-01-02 -0900, Philip wrote:
>>Frankie:
>> > Has anyone written about "meme" bonding? That is: what causes memes
>> > to join together to form larger memeplexes? Why don't we just have
>> > billions of separate memes floating around in our brains?
>>
>>Memes clutter together as most memes have parental memes. Coherence of
>>memes like social being often enhances survival rate compared to the loner
>>meme.
>>Thus generations of related memes tend to cling together. Examples:
>>computers and their parts, other inventions such as the airplane with
>>jet-engine, flight-computers, your own manifestation of your self is a huge
>>collection of related memes, religious memes taint your whole worldview thus
>>determining which
>>further memes should be adopted which always have to be compatible with
>>already
>>adopted religious memes, same goes for scientifically oriented minds. The
>>observation that memes are related to other memes, e.g. by composition, is
>>incorporated in my recursive definition of the meme. The use of memes acting
>>together is analogous to that of genes: take one gene and you have nothing
>>except
>>for perhaps the production of one type of protein, take 33,000 genes and you
>>may
>>build a human being.
>>
>>Philip.
>
>______________________________________________
>
>Newton's Laws of Emotion:
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/biosem.html
>There can be no complexity without simplicity.
>
>Applied simplicity:
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/applied.html
>
>Stephen Springette
>______________________________________________
>
>===============================================================
>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
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
===============================================================
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 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 06:22:16 GMT