Re: electric meme bombs

From: Van oost Kenneth (
Date: Sun 27 Oct 2002 - 10:26:22 GMT

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

    ----- Original Message ----- From: <>
    > My problem is not with the individual existence of each tree, but with the
    > impossibility of talking about trees in general. For every individual
    > would have to have an individual name if the type/token distinction,
    > under which each tree is a token of the type 'tree', is denied. Wade
    > was actually doing this concerning actions, but you cannot pick and
    > choose where the type/token structure of language applies. And when
    > one eliminates that distinction, one eliminates the grounds of shared
    > meaning from which meaningful communication and discourse may
    > emerge.

    In Wade's scheme you have to have each time a different language to talk about any tree individualistic, that is what you' re saying here, no !?

    But is that, in the real sense of the word, a problem !? Talking about the rain forest doesn 't mean we deny the existence of other forest in the world !? Each forest has its name, place and function in the total picture of what we see as nature, and IMO if I talk about the trees which are standing in the neighbourhood where I live I talk about specific trees, not about those trees of the Amazone. So in that sense am I not talking about those in the individualistic type/ token distinction !?

    In the way Wade applied this to actions I can understand his motivation because I think I am on his side on this one. My stance is, and has always been, that within society/ culture we have to look at the individual and his actions to understand society/ culture in its whole.

    The fact that you or I behave in a specific way, than collective way doesn 't mean we haven 't individualistic aspect/ affects towards it_ our genetic/ memetic isomorphism makes that possible. The main point of my discourse is that within society/ culture everything is biased upon a collective way of seeing things, where IMO the basis has always been individualistic, groupsbounding_ in any way, like Gould mentioned is just another step in evolution. Goulds Full House idea implies that individualism was the norm to beat, individual selection was overrun by the space groupse- lection needed, and what counted for groupsize, is now still the norm for any other social- mutation,... including language.



    =============================================================== 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 : Sun 27 Oct 2002 - 10:14:15 GMT