Re: Standard definition

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 06:40:53 GMT

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 05:31 , wrote:

    > But you cannot define 'not walking' as a specific performance type, or
    > even a specific performance, because any other behavior, or lack of
    > any behavior at all, qualifies.

    Hmmm, well, I'm not trying to define specific behavior types, beyond being memetic or not. I'm not, personally, (as opposed to intentionally, as regards the beme stance) the type of person who enjoys cataloguing distinctions.

    But, the conditions required to make 'not walking' a meme are not stringent or difficult to arrange. But, in all of this, the only priority or constraint upon a memetic performance is the willingness of another to replicate it. The conditions required to make a specific and unaccompanied (by extraneous gesture or speech, for instance), meme of
    'not walking' magnetic enough to create a crowd of stillness is beyond my immediate imagination to stage. The ever-present 'living statues' in city squares all over the world do not gather immotive satellites and create gridlock throughout the sidewalk.

    And those in their cars during 'rush' hour, while embroiled in gridlock, are not beme-ing anything- they are just unable to move.

    - 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 : Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 06:45:25 GMT