Re: Standard definition

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 12:15:21 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Standard definition"

    On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 04:14 , derek gatherer wrote:

    > Aaron:
    > Nor do I have to deal with people insisting that only
    > external behaviors or artifacts can qualify as
    > "ideas."

    Interesting. Who is doing that?

    Is there any reason to discuss internal behaviors culturally? Inside the museums infinity goes up on trial.

    > Derek:
    > No, but I insist you can't quantify ideas. You've
    > painted yourself into a non-quantitative corner.

    I would make the same insistence. There is no how or why to such a quantification.

    > Jeremy:
    > But what about qualitative analysis of ideas Derek?
    > Derek:
    > Interesting but not science.

    Art, literature, interpretation, even performance, even gossip, but, agreed, not science. So much of memetics is all of that, and not an iota of the other.

    Placing the cultural unit of transmission solely in performance would allow quantitative analysis. Putting it anywhere else only allows conjecture.

    - Wade

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 12:19:37 GMT