Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA29930 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 9 Mar 2002 23:51:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 18:46:26 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F104CHbZUebdBLMYPVp00016c46@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2002 23:46:27.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1101DF0:01C1C7C4] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
>Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:34:11 -0000
> <I would like to get away from our personal opinions on issues and
> > the formation of those ideas/memes. As I said before we, as a culture,
> > have
> > developed the notion that text is stable. Why?>
> I didn't say that either, but it is_more_stable than oral
> <It can be clearly demonstrated that language, use and meanings
>change over remarkably short periods of time. Also history is written,
>usually by the victors, some time after the events and often hides as many
>truths as it portrays.
> > The thing that we text-based societies miss in deriding the accuracy of
> > oral society's historical accounts is that is that remembering exactly
> > important, it is a cultural feature.>
> The problem of oral history is simply one of fidelity of
>transmission across many individuals over long periods of time. Of course
>meaning and interpretation change over time in relation to a written text,
>but the text retains fidelity for a lot longer than does oral
>To give an example, Homer's work reflects oral traditions of ancient
>but already by the time the odyssey and iliad were written down, elements
>the events they supposedly recounted (the war against Troy and the return
>journey of Odysseus) had probably been embellished over time (given the
>centuries gap between events, tale, and writing of it). Whilst
>interpretations of those stories may have changed countless times since
>then, the text has remained largely unchanged (allowing for the not
>insignificant changes in translation).
> <In the groups that I have associated with, the old people tell the
> > and then check the retelling for errors. Only a group member who can
> > retell
> > a story faithfully gets to be the 'custodian' of that story. It's not
> > simple of course Vincent, but don't get the idea that orality is like a
> > trans-millennial Chinese whisper.>
> But that's exactly what it is.
> >> You don't think accounts passed down from person to person
> >>oral communication are subjective?
> <I think that the stories were subjective in the first place>
> <I should have said that there was a belief common to ALL
> > nations and language-groups that the country 'owned' the people rather
> > than
> > the other way around. Therefore, even if some conflict did occur, it was
> > not over territory as, even if did 'win', the country wouldn't 'know'
> > I can't describe this facet much better than this without going into a
> > long
> > treatment of the subject and it may well be so foreign to your
> > understandings as to be misunderstood anyway.
> > My main point is still the question of whether territoriality and
> > possessiveness is natural/genetic or nurture/memetic.>>
> I think you're conflating territoriality as a social concept (e.g.
>nationalism), with territoriality as a reality of natural selection (i.e
>competition for, and defending of resources). Think about it this way-
>you're sitting in a restaurant about to tuck into your favourite food when
>someone walks in, comes right up to you and picks up your plate and walks
>off with it. That initial feeling- 'hey, that's my food!'- that's the
>territoriality I'm on about.
> In some societies this kind of response is extrapolated out to
>levels of families, villages, nations etc., in others it isn't, but
>kind of society one's in, it's an inherent trait in individuals.
> Another example might be conceptions of personal space (instead of
>stealing your food, the stranger comes and sits right next to you, despite
>there being plenty of empty tables in the restaurant- what's your initial
What if a stranger sat next to you, bumping you over in your booth, grabbed
your sandwich and started eating it and started making passes at your
> Socio-cultural factors may enhance, surpress or distort such things
>but, IMHO they don't create them.
I'm conflicted on the nature/nurture thingy. I'm trying to avoid the Scylla
and Charybdis of biological and cultural determinism. Richard Lerner talks
about both determinisms in his book _Final Solutions_ and offers the
alternative of developmental contextualism. I'm not totally sure of how
valid his views are.
One way of looking at it is that a single genotype will exhibit a range of
outcomes depending on the range of environments encountered during
development and that a single environment will result in a range of outcomes
depending on the genotype of the organism. I guess its *much* more
complicated than this though. Lerner talks of a *fusion* of genotype and
John Wilkins has spoken of developmental systems theory (DST), so maybe he
can offer some guidance...
I also got the gist that the Nazi's were hardcore biological determinists
where they felt eliminating inferior genotypes was the way to perfection
while communists were hardcore environmental determinists (shades of
Lysenko?) and felt that social re-education, no matter how harsh or deadly,
was the way to perfection. I'm probably not remembering this entirely
I don't think Lerner was equating sociobiologists and Nazis but was offering
some biologically deterministic parallelism nonetheless. He really lays into
the topic of Nobel prize winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz's checkered Nazi
past and his analogy comparing certain humans to a cancerous growth.
I'm probably a tad more sympathetic to sociobiology/ep than those on the
intellectual Left and may come down a *little* less critically than Gould
and his buddies, but I still look at sociobiological (and memetic) notions
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
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 : Sun Mar 10 2002 - 00:02:02 GMT