From: Grant Callaghan (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 22:18:44 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, that means that that language is bogus, based on
little more than blind faith in Darwinian metaphor. It's not a tool for
thoughtful analysis, it's a substitute for such analysis.
The lack of knowledge about DNA didn't stop Darwin. The fact is, we KNOW
there are neurological and psychological underpinnings of memes. There has
to be. True, science has not advanced to the point of having a comprehensive
description of what they are, but when it does, we'll be ready.
I believe cognitive science does provide such evidence and the language with
which to describe it. They just call them frames and blends rather than
memes. But as long as people realize they are talking about the same basic
thing, communication can take place.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 16 Feb 2003 - 22:16:11 GMT