RE: Why People are so Contrary

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Thu 12 Dec 2002 - 06:45:27 GMT

  • Next message: Jonathan Davis: "Re: What determines choice?"

    >>From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    >>Subject: RE: Why People are so Contrary
    >>Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:08:10 -0800
    >>>>Hurrah, Grant!
    >>>>Memetics has only suffered by insistence that it 'fit' genetic or
    >>>>evolutionary models. Nor, truly, do memes operate as mere units of
    >>>>information, or, from the PoV of cybernetics, units of control. To me,
    >>>>memetics is its own thing, and offers its own unique insights, and along
    >>>>with those insights, its own set of applications.
    >>>Whither Dawkins, the ultradarwinist extraordinaire? Whither Darwin's
    >>>Dangerous Idea?
    >>>OTOH don't forget Darwin's provisional hypothesis of pangenesis, but we
    >>>can kindly skip over that for the sake of the ultradarwinian memeticists.
    >>>At what point when you step away from Darwinian selectionism and
    >>>Mendelian particulatism does memetics cease to be memetics?
    >>>Better off calling it something else then.
    >>>> > I am still in a state of pondering what I realized yesterday == that
    >>>> > propagation of memes in no way resembles either the Darwinian or the
    >>>> > Lamarkian model. Right now, I can't think of anything it does
    >>>> > other than information theory. Cybernetics seems to offer a more
    >>>> > reasonable
    >>>> > explanation than genetics because we have no idea what memes give
    >>>> > birth to.
    >>>> > The fact that we have culture, however, is a good indication they
    >>>> > give birth
    >>>> > to something. And whatever it is seems to be growing at an
    >>>> > rate.
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Grant
    >>I don't think it matters much what we call it as long as we can agree
    >>we're talking about the same thing. Cultural dynamics would do as well as
    >>anything. Cognitive anthropology might fit. Memetics has a short sound
    >>bite going for it, though, and I think it is possible to dump the genetic
    >>baggage if we recognize that the thing we're talking about has certain
    >>atributes that are different from anything else in the way of structural
    >>dynamics. Culture accumulates like snow from a cloud and the more people
    >>you have making clouds, the deeper culture will accumulate.
    >>Maybe a better metaphor might be bricks and mortar. Language and
    >>narrative are the bricks and grammar is the mortar that holds it all
    >>together. Or perhaps pictures are the key. Language enables us to take a
    >>picture from our minds and pass it to another mind. In school I was never
    >>able to understand a subject or an idea until I was able to form a picture
    >>of it in my mind. Until then, it was just grey fuzziness that my mind
    >>couldn't quite grab ahold of. Or, as they used to say in the early days
    >>of programming, it was like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
    >>In the days before history, ideas were passed by story telling and
    >>instruction. When a group of people sat around the fire at night, and
    >>various members of the tribe told about how they killed a deer or a shaman
    >>told how he called down thunder and lightening from the sky, it was all
    >>done with words. History was passed from old to young by word of mouth
    >>long before it was written down. Schooling was mostly show and tell. And
    >>language was the tool that built this acumulation of knowledge and ideas
    >>we now call culture that was shared by the entire tribe. But the stories
    >>I tell today I see first in my mind and I suspect that's how it has been
    >>since people started telling them.
    >>Call them pictures, call them ideas, call them frames or call them memes,
    >>it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is something I can see in
    >>my mind and pass on to one or many human beings, just as I am doing right
    >>now. And after the words have gone out through my mouth or through my
    >>fingers, the picture that was in my mind will find its way into yours, as
    >>long as you understand the words. The sounds that are in my mind will
    >>also find their way into yours whether I sing them, say them, or play them
    >>on a flute. They are there and if we're going to talk about them we have
    >>to call them by one or more names.
    >What I was driving at is when you start drifting from the dogma of
    >universal darwinism or cultural darwinism or what have you (as long as it's
    >Darwininian in the ultra-neo sense) where is the line drawn where it ceases
    >to be memetic at the core? Seems to me you're neutralizing the universal
    >acid when you move beyond the Darwinian core, by saying Darwinism need not
    >I, myself, am not convinced that Darwinism applies to cultural phenomenon
    >in the sense of Mendelesque units that are replicated, transmitted and
    >subjected to multigeneration selection forces. I'm pointing out that if you
    >diverge in your thinking from Darwinian tenets as applied to cultural
    >phenomena, there comes a time when you might think about when it's not
    >warranted to call the stuff you look for "memes". Old Yeller and all

    A lot of what's called a meme right now is not warranted. That's why we have to define what we're talking about. When enough people agree, the name will sort itself out and we'll all be talking about the same thing. Meanwhile, the meme is a fuzzy link in the chain of logic between where ideas come from and where they go.


    _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 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) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 12 Dec 2002 - 06:53:49 GMT