Re: Standard definition

From: Bill Spight (
Date: Mon 28 Oct 2002 - 21:46:31 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Standard definition"

    Dear Kenneth,

    > > In practice, this is not a problem as long as you are clear about which
    > > level you are talking about. For a long time I considered memes as units
    > > for different levels, and it was fine to have memes for one level
    > > composed of memes for a lower level. But there is an alternative that I
    > > find attractive.
    > Are you implying a kind of hiearchy, a kind of pyramid- scheme with on
    > top THE MEME !?

    Language and other knowledge is hierarchically organized. As for language, I think that all of the -emes are memes: phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, sememes. However, the higher up we go in these hierarchies, the more abstract we get, the further from the senses, the less likely I think it is that things are transmitted *as a unit*, and the less likely that the entities on those levels are individual memes.



    =============================================================== 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 : Mon 28 Oct 2002 - 21:49:45 GMT