Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:07:49 +0000
From: Bruce Howlett <bhowlett@metz.une.edu.au>
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Hosts vs. Instances
--------------07B3A61CE600A69616753DD9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Brodie wrote:
I, and I'm sure Aaron, stand chastised and humbled. Once again, you've
put your finger on the crux of the situation. You know, this one
statement may be the key to moving this whole debate forward. It got me
to thinking and I must say I think you're right.
Dear Richard,
My mother-in-law has perfected the art of ridicule to a point that
makes this attempt seem juvenile. It is a pity that you did not see fit
to make any comment that might have been helpful. Maybe my best attempt
to join in this debate is so far beneath your elevated status that this
was the only response you could manage.
Let's cut to the chase: While some may be impressed with the ongoing
war of words between you and Aaron, most of us don't give a rats arse.
Stop being so defensive and get down to some creative synthesis and try
to work together. Any cursory study of scientific method will confirm
the improbability of a unified theory. So lets agree to differ on some
points and see what we can do with the rest. The more pragmatic
memeticists are working towards an operational model. This section of
my response to Tim I hoped might initiate some constructive criticism:
<If when the *meme* information is communicated to a human it penetrates
(competes successfully with other memes), is activated (triggered by
pattern identification or by subverting or converting other processes),
is recognised (as a memory object), then replicates (which may include
mutation) by causing the host to pass on the meme in some form; THEN we
are talking about a recogniseable memetic event. There may even be a
physiological or psychological explanation for this phenomena.
Regardless of the process, the validation of memes relies on the
discovery of how it works in a *real* situation, in *real* time, and
what *real* effect it has on human behaviour. >
If you can't think of anything constructive to say, don't bother.
Regards,
Bruce.
--
Bruce Howlett. B.A.L., J.P.
Email: bhowlett@metz.une.edu.au
Researching: Management of Change in Organizations: The Culture
Concept
at the University of New England
Armidale NSW 2350
AUSTRALIA
--------------07B3A61CE600A69616753DD9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Richard Brodie wrote:
I, and I'm sure Aaron, stand chastised and humbled. Once again, you've put your finger on the crux of the situation. You know, this one statement may be the key to moving this whole debate forward. It got me to thinking and I must say I think you're right.
Dear Richard,
My mother-in-law has perfected the art of ridicule to a point that makes this attempt seem juvenile. It is a pity that you did not see fit to make any comment that might have been helpful. Maybe my best attempt to join in this debate is so far beneath your elevated status that this was the only response you could manage.
Let's cut to the chase: While some may be impressed with the ongoing war of words between you and Aaron, most of us don't give a rats arse. Stop being so defensive and get down to some creative synthesis and try to work together. Any cursory study of scientific method will confirm the improbability of a unified theory. So lets agree to differ on some points and see what we can do with the rest. The more pragmatic memeticists are working towards an operational model. This section of my response to Tim I hoped might initiate some constructive criticism:
<If when the *meme* information is communicated to a human it penetrates (competes successfully with other memes), is activated (triggered by pattern identification or by subverting or converting other processes), is recognised (as a memory object), then replicates (which may include mutation) by causing the host to pass on the meme in some form; THEN we are talking about a recogniseable memetic event. There may even be a physiological or psychological explanation for this phenomena. Regardless of the process, the validation of memes relies on the discovery of how it works in a *real* situation, in *real* time, and what *real* effect it has on human behaviour. >
If you can't think of anything constructive to say, don't bother.
Regards,
Bruce.
--