Re: electric meme bombs

From: Wade Smith (
Date: Thu 31 Oct 2002 - 19:50:55 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 12:58 , wrote:

    > Beme (x1), (x2), (x3), ...(xn) may all be seen as externally
    > performed/manifested tokens of the internally stored template meme-
    > type x.

    They may indeed. Richard agrees with you there.

    But, I see no reason to see them as anything but performances- with
    _none_ of this token identity involved at all.

    Because there _is_ no 'internally stored template meme', (well, there ain't one needed in the bemetic model), and there is no way to know what someone else is thinking prior to performance, and performance itself is a feedback self-referential event.

    As I point out in tireless repetition- no-one can know one's own actual performance prior to the actual performance, and again I defy you to say we do. This is not just an axiom of the beme theory, but a fact of causal events in this universe. There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and the best laid plans often go awry. What happens in performance is, at best, well prepared for, but it, _in no way_, is a
    _completely_ manifested token of anything internal. We move in, out, up, down, left, right, in an external universe, not just dance in thought within our brains. It is not until the actual performance that completeness of the beme happens.

    As to whether or not there are memes hopping about in the brain prior to performance, I see no need to put anything there but normal cognitive processes like memory and recall, sense and sensory feedback, and all the other things that occupy the brain during a time of awake consciousness. I see no need to multiply entities of cognitive process by introducing a meme, a meme-ory, or anything else. If what what does with memory is cultural, then a beme happens. If one simply recalls, recollection happens. If you want to embrace the activities of the mind prior to bemetic performance, and call that process 'memetic', fine. The process is what is important to me and I see no need to add more cogs and whistles.

    And I'm continually amazed that anyone really wants to complicate, even further, the already over-archingly complex process that is human thought.

    Culturally, nothing happens until the performance of the beme. As humans, we have culture, but, I see no reason to make it a multiplied entity, either, but rather see it as an expected product of social and cognitive processes, impacting upon the self (that referential emergent process you so capably describe) and continued through performance.

    - 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 - 19:54:58 GMT