Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA02177 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:53:47 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:48:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Words and Memes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <003301c1b7f7$f141a1e0$9086b2d1@teddace> Message-Id: <3BC6D888-2409-11D6-8DEC-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
[I don't know who wrote this-]
>> It is the structure that allows self-dissemination and self-defense
>> that makes a thing a meme, not the thing itself.
But I don't think I'm being absurdly reductionist when I declare that
the structure of something _is_ the thing itself.
What else is there? Intent? The structure is the level of expression of
the intent. The structure is the thing itself.
Regardless of how much brainsmoke there is, the meme [performed] is the
As to the memetic processes that preceded this performance, they are
products of evolution and part of our genetic and developmental makeup,
not the thing [meme] itself.
(As well as getting us to the point where minds emerge.)
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 18 2002 - 01:17:56 GMT