From: Grant Callaghan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 21 Nov 2002 - 22:55:07 GMT
Forgive me if I presume. But then I'm not writing for publication or peer
review. I'm just offering an opinion, which is all any of us have to offer
at this time.
>On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 04:31 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
>>Since language is a subset of memetics
>Dubious, unproven, and, while purposedly axiomatic, not very useful, since
>we don't really know much about language, either.
>Prescriptive linguistics aside, (as well as my own personal fave,
>philology), we don't know what the Romans really did with language anymore
>than we do the Picts.
>They communicated, yes. Communication is a wide-ranging prescription.
>Memes don't _necessarily_ communicate anything. There are many analogs of
>language and memetics, but, to put one or the other into a set structure
>is, well, presumptuous.
>Although the memes in the mind model might require such a set theory.
>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)
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
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 21 Nov 2002 - 22:57:57 GMT