From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: i-memes and m-memes
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:51:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <37CC1932.99FA0BC3@pacbell.net>
My point is, that aerodynamics analyzes grand pianos and TV sets just as it
does seagulls and biplanes. Likewise, Memetics can embrace all things. It's
just that some phenomena replicate better than others, with greater fidelity
or with increased mutation, or never thus far, and by different means.
Dormancy is the norm.
Memetics has to do with replication. All phenomena are replicators, just as
all things are aerodynamic. Most, badly. Bad aerodynamics and poor
replication are the norm.
This gets us away from memetic non-definitions based on prior history and
muddles with "potential memes" as a result. Mimetic viability, as an
attribute or circumstance, is a far better concept.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Bill Spight
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 2:05 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: i-memes and m-memes
>
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> > An unknown unseen dust particle is a bad replicator just as a
> falling piano is a bad airplane.
>
> ROFLOL!
>
> (About the piano, not the dust particle. <s>)
>
> That goes in the next edition of "Gone with the Mind".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> ===============================================================
> 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