From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 11:31:18 GMT
----- Original Message -----
> > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 03:19 , Van oost Kenneth wrote:
> > > Generalizin' behavior and than predicting what the next
> > > individualistic behavior will be is in my book arrogant and shows
> > > how much people don 't understand of what is it to be a human
> > > individual_ moreover it shows how much people are willing to set
> > > themselves aside for a proper/ better good... Aaarrhhh !!
> > Aargh indeed. Since beme1 is never and cannot be beme2, there is no
> > generalizing of behavior in the bemetic model. There is location of
> > similarity as an agent of cultural continuance, but, no, I really
> > don't see much hope of prediction from _any_ of the cultural, memetic,
> > or bemetic models, actually.
> there is no generalizing of behavior in the bemetic model.
> One of its fatal flaws.
This is becoming a question of ideology IMO !
Wade is in a sense emphazin' individuality and Joe lingers onto a more
collective state of things.
In Wade's proposal a Bildung- ideal is set/ implied, Joe uses the gene-
ralisation to drive cultural transmission.
Wade's proposal is something that implies humanism/ romantism, Joe's
claim is dependent of something higher, more divine, collectiviness is
seen here as a ' natural autority ' !
I reject that...
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 : Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 11:18:43 GMT