Re: pls direct me to a memetics list <eom>

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Sun May 19 2002 - 21:54:35 BST

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Re: New Scientist this week"

    Received: by id WAA17813 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 19 May 2002 22:02:55 +0100
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
    Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 21:54:35 +0100
    Subject: Re: pls direct me to a memetics list <eom>
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    Precedence: bulk

    Very interesting Ray. In some respects the study of chain mail could aid the
    study of religion because the chain mail letter, though depending on
    superstition etc is a much smaller memetic unit than religion and hence more
    susceptible to study than religion itself. What do you think?

    Also, Wade your wrong. Religion doesn't seem to relate to most of the
    factors you mention. Bush is loaded and come across as a bit of a red neck
    that on min wage would be out shooting owt for the pot.

    Try looking at religion from more than the US view.



    > Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:35:27 -0400
    > From: <>
    > Subject: Re: pls direct me to a memetics list <eom>
    >> On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 05:08 , Steve Drew wrote:
    >>> It is a message who's sole excistance relies on "copy me or
    >>> else!"
    >> And upon superstition, and leisure time, and social standing, and a
    >> postal service or other distribution, and perhaps a hundred other
    >> motivations and forces none of which will be, ever are, or could even
    >> be
    >> investigated or corrected for.
    >> IMHO such studies are useless. They are only valid as meters of
    >> academia's distance from practicality.
    >> - Wade
    > As opposed to a discussion of why religious fundamentalism spreads among
    > Moslems or numerous other hot button topics you frequently participate
    > in. Clearly none of the factors you have mentioned above cloud or muddy
    > the precise analysis engaged in here.
    > Neither the cladistic nor the population distribution analysis I
    > suggested need necessarily get into those motivations. They would simply
    > catalog relations among letters and population frequencies, leaving
    > causal analysis for another time. Such studies would produce useful
    > information much in the same way that a classification and population
    > distribution analysis of related species need not immediately get into
    > why speciation occurred or the reasons for differences in population
    > distribution. Check 'Reconstruction of organisational phylogeny from
    > memetic similarity analysis: Proof of feasibility' by Andrew Lord and If
    > Price in the September issue of the Journal of Memetics for an example.
    > I suspect that chain letters could be much more objectively classified
    > than religious denominations.

    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 May 19 2002 - 22:15:18 BST