From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 20 Oct 2002 - 15:19:28 GMT
----- Original Message -----
> My argument is that by insisting upon the uniqueness of every
> performance, so that no two performances cann be deemed to be
> tokens of a single memetic type, you undermine linguistic definition
> generally. By such a rule, there can only be one star, one meme, one
> frog, one tree, etc., and all the other things that slightly differ from
> sole chosen exemplar would have to get their own words. This would
> kill off language and communication entirely. I understand your desire
> to counter my strong token/type argument, but this desperate attempt to
> do so throws out not only the baby with the bathwater, but the whole
This may be so with language but not with people though !
My stance is that each and every is an unique individual and my
point is that everyone is entitled to be treated as such !
My good is not yours and my wrong is not your concern, we
are both right and even so wrong !
The point is that we have two seperate lines of thoughts, both
wrong and oh so right, the fact is that only one can be seen
as true and that is the line which survives memetically...
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 2.1.5 : Sun 20 Oct 2002 - 15:08:19 GMT