From: Wade T.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 12:08:46 GMT
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 03:05 , email@example.com wrote:
> If it is indeed "based upon his apprehension of the original", then it
> not totally new, but, along with the original, a token of their common
Nothing is primarily totally new, with few exceptions. Even alien life,
if it took root here after being carried upon meteorites, is not new to
But, yes, the common meme-type is what is similar, and allows patterned
tracking, and provides the continuity we may call culture. The forces
behind each bemes' creation are not new, but DNA-instructed ancient, if
not downright hoary.
Beme1 is never beme2, but, because of sources and environment, can
differ in only minuscule ways. Traditions are enforced to similarity by
definition. Among spoken history telling societies, the most revered of
the tale-tellers is the one who never changes a word. We value
continuity, choosing to put on our pants left leg first every time.
But, what things are based upon (the meme in the mind operating in
meme-ory) is highly conjectural, at least, at this point. May this lose
its mystery, as it is indeed doing. Whether or not the nomenclature will
prove continuous is another question, on all points.
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 : Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 12:12:46 GMT