From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 20:07:33 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wade T.Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 07:43 , email@example.com wrote
> > 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.
it is necessary to recognize that all performances are unique, and
> that this is another mutative function.
> My stance rejects the very idea of non-unique memes, because it
> recognizes the evidential certainty of unique performances.
> In this way it mirrors genetics, as every mutation is a unique
> performance of DNA, from a set of similars. Coughs from the audience,
> squeaks from the reed, scrapings of the chair, if you will. Random,
> uncontrollable, unforeseeable, and yet, part of the performance,
> regardless of rehearsal or mental preparation or experience or even
Wade, all of this is reduced to naughts in the current set of technology,
coughs, squeaks ans scrapings are filtered out.
What is left is just another performence by yet another artist.
The gently polished versions of the old Beatles- songs have taking out
the whole spirit of a wonderful decade... I don 't think with remixin '
and taping those songs back on the new avaible technologies makes
them better, they were good, you can in a way make them sound
better, but was that the initial idea of the group !? I wonder !
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 : Sat 26 Oct 2002 - 19:55:30 GMT