Re: electric meme bombs

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Sat 19 Oct 2002 - 00:13:00 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    > On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 03:58 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
    > > The question here is not whether a meme is or isn't. The question is
    > > what are we going to call things? At some point in time someone wrote
    > > a ditty called London Bridge is falling down. Some of us are calling
    > > the creation of that ditty in the mind of the creator a meme. Some are
    > > saying they will only refer to it as a meme after he/she has passed it
    > > on to someone else. Some say it is what was passed on that was the
    > > meme and everyone else who sings or says or writes it is also passing
    > > on that same meme. To each person who uses the word, "meme," to refer
    > > to what he/she has decided to call a meme, it is a meme. To those who
    > > have decided something different, it is not. But there is no meme
    > > outside of what we decide to call something. If we decide to call it a
    > > beme, then for that person at that moment, that's what it is. So
    > > arguing over what is and is not a meme is futile and self defeating.
    > > What we have to decide is what part of our experience are we going to
    > > refer to as memes. Outside of that, they don't exist.

    I think the absolute minimum requirement would be: meme = a replicator of a cultural element.


    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 19 Oct 2002 - 06:46:24 GMT