Date: Sun 27 Oct 2002 - 20:19:36 GMT
> Dear Ted,
> > > > The question of memetics is the question of
> > > > whether these elements of culture carry their own momentum,
> > > > their own drive to reproduce.
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> > I don't appreciate this. Your comment reveals hostility. Where is
> > this hostility coming from?
> I apologize for the vulgarity, Ted. But I have no hostility towards
> you. :-)
> It's just that when you start personifying memes, talking about "drive
> to reproduce," and so on, you are not only going off into la-la land,
> you are setting up a paper tiger that is easy to demolish rather than
> addressing what memetics is really about.
> > You badly misunderstand memetics. Without "selfishness," in the
> > sense of "selfish gene," the whole idea is shot.
> What do you think the "selfishness" of the "selfish gene" means?
> > If memes are just ideas or
> > catch-phrases or tunes or habitual behaviors (like wearing a
> > baseball cap backwards), then we don't need to refer to them as
> > memes. Unless they're self-replicating, we can just as easily refer
> > to them with the same terms we've always used. It's their
> > self-replication that marks them off as the cultural equivalent of
> > genes.
> Genes do not self-replicate, either.
> All that memes require is replication, variation, and selection.
Yep; 'selfishness' is a badly chosen and anthropomorphic metaphor, not a concrete actuality.
> 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 27 Oct 2002 - 20:23:55 GMT