From: Wade T.Smith (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 24 Nov 2002 - 07:28:26 GMT
On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 09:51 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
> I call it transactional because it involves a transaction, an exchange
> of goods or information, between two or more parties. Every
> transaction is a performance but the word "performance" doesn't imply
> the exchange of information and the relationship between the parties.
The comedian who replicates the accidental fall of another as the
pratfall of slapstick received or exchanged very little, if any, goods
from the victim of the fall, but, performed the pratfall nonetheless.
There is no need for any relationship between these two, and
performance, observation, and replication are all that is demanded in
the pemetic model. There is very little, if any, exchange of goods or
information in my example- most of the information of the fall is, in
fact, ignored, because the comedian needs to practice his fall as
totally _not_ accident.
But, I know this is mostly semantic- the information gained about how to
perform the pratfall is somewhat there, in the first fall itself.
I would only argue, outside of this semantic quarrel, that _no intent_
is required in the performance model, whereas I see it being required in
the transactional (and in the memesinthemind) 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 24 Nov 2002 - 07:31:26 GMT