Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA12201 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:41:04 GMT From: <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:37:30 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Memes Meta-Memes and Politics 3 of 3 (1988, updates 2002) X-Mailer: WorldClient Pro 2.2.1 In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 01:19 , Francesca S. Alcorn wrote:
> >>there has to be a word that recognizes processes that function
> >>across/at all levels of complexity.
> >It might be called sociobiology.
> >Which, IMHO, answers almost all of memetics' questions, goes on to
> >ask and answer a few more, and gets cold shouldered as a result.
> >Which is a pity, because it doesn't disclaim memetics at all. It
> >just puts it in a rather smaller place than it might want to be.
> >- Wade
> OK, trudge, trudge, trudge. Off to add E. O. Wilson to my reading
> list. I keep bumping up against his ideas don't I?
'Three Scientists and their Gods' by Robert Wright does a nice job of
summarizing Wilson's thinking. I think you mentioned that you had read
that. If you do tackle 'Sociobiology' you might be able to skip ahead to
the last chapter or so which cover humans.
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 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 22:27:35 GMT