From: Wade T.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 20:12:25 GMT
On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 02:42 , email@example.com wrote:
>> Your definition of performance is inadequate.
> Show me a spaceless externality.
Show me the actual _space_ your version of performance's externality is-
as far as I can see it is a partial vacuum, without observer. (The
actual space of a performance is the total timespace of the performer,
the setting, and the observers.) Your example of the song was just such-
you claimed to have performed something culturally without an observer.
Bogus. What you did was supply the artifact of your words. The space of
your artifact is this email forum, the intended observers the listserv
members. As I indicated, artifacts are special cases of performances.
But somehow, you expected our imaginations to provide the tune, I guess.
It's not that I'm unimaginative, and I _didn't_ supply the (probably
intended) tune for your artifact (the special case of the artifact
itself asks us to supply the tune, as it is a generally common one),
but, at no time did I totally assume this tune was the actual one you
sang, and I have no empirical proof that it was.
Thus the 'space' you performed this claimed song of yours was
incomplete, and, in many ways, I see you transporting this same
incomplete space to your model.
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 : Sun 03 Nov 2002 - 20:16:13 GMT