Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA21211 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:59:45 GMT Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020214003412.02c827c0@pop.cogeco.ca> X-Sender: hkhenson@pop.cogeco.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:56:35 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> Subject: Re: Memes Meta-Memes and Politics 1 of 3 (1988, updates 2002) In-Reply-To: <188.353089d.299c9113@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 11:03 PM 13/02/02 -0500, Aaron wrote:
snip
>The points you raise about how memetics may be ideologically
>threatening to a growing movement are good ones. In the case of the
>Libertarians, there may be another consideration: that the theory
>suggests that not all the major problems and misbeliefs of society can
>be traced to the actions of governments, and that populations can go
>astray even without the action of a central authority.
That's certainly true. As an example, the al-Qaeda cult can't really be
called a government. And the corruption the scientologists cause is not a
function of governments.
> From what Scott says, it appears that the furor at Reason and at
>Liberty happened long after you wrote the article. That is, assuming
>that I correctly remember you having started to circulate the article
>sometime around 1986. If 1996 was the year of the big flap at
>Reason and at Liberty, then the whole thing would have been a very
>current and emotional memory to them by the time they got my book in
>1996.
I had the wrong person, corrected in a followup to Scott. The Analog meme
article went to them some time in 1986. I was working on the Reason
article before Analog came out. So they would have seen it perhaps late in
1987 would be my guess. I am away from my files or I might be able to pull
out a reject notice.
That a *rejected* article would be remembered close to ten years later is
amazing. I can't see what is in it that would have had that much
effect. Now that I think about it, it rejected *twice.* It had been
written after I talked Robert Poole about a meme article, so it was a real
surprise to get it back. I called and told them it had been written by
arrangement and they said to send it back. I got another reject with a
note that Poole was no longer editor. Perhaps the reason it was remembered
was because of some internal battle and has nothing to do with the content.
Memetics, history of.
:-)
Keith
===============================================================
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 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 06:09:07 GMT