From: Jeremy Bradley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 21:00:39 GMT
At 07:15 AM 30/10/02 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 04:14 , derek gatherer wrote:
>> Nor do I have to deal with people insisting that only
>> external behaviors or artifacts can qualify as
>Interesting. Who is doing that?
>Is there any reason to discuss internal behaviors culturally? Inside the
>museums infinity goes up on trial.
>> 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
>> But what about qualitative analysis of ideas 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
Jeremy: The behaviours, or performance of art, literature, or any other cultural artefact, are as qualitatively analysable, as the art, or literature that supports them. It is true that the opportunity to exactly measure 'things' in a cultural item, or unit, is absent. However, IMO, it is not simply conjecture to say whether an idea, trend or theme exists or not in a cultural artefact - even if that artefact is not a performance. PS I'm away for a week. So if I don't respond to the outrage of the 'hard science' buffs to my humanistic polemic, it is not because I have seen the inherent errors of postmodernity ;~)
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 : Wed 30 Oct 2002 - 21:14:18 GMT