From: Wade T. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 02 Mar 2003 - 17:19:04 GMT
On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 11:36 AM, memetics-digest wrote:
>> You seem to have adopted a homeopathic model for cultural information,
>> and it is just as invalid and specious there as it is in medicine.
> This is the same question as the question of whether or not
> hieroglyphics embodied memes prior to the discovery of the Rosetta
> stone. I would say that the potential was there, and it was rendered
> actualizable by the translation key.
Nits are always pickable, many more than I ever attempt. (This is the
mainstay of academic study.) Heiroglyphs were, nevertheless, symbols of
language, and, so far, language is somewhat possessed of an intrinsic
quality pre-evolved before culture/memes, is it not? Or is that
question still up in the air?
At any rate, one can form and adopt and even use 'translations' of
languages at any time, imagining the original semantic content, even
being somewhat assured one knows the correct semantic content, but, one
can never be sure, and one cannot create a new Egyptian heiroglyph
This is what is lost- the ability to make a new cultural artifact using
the same behavioral context, and this is what creates memes, and, both
with the Tlingit artifacts, and with heiroglyphs, this is lost, indeed.
And what is lost, bottom line, is the ability to make the meme, as its
full context is gone. One cannot make a Studebaker in an Edsel factory,
even assuming one finds an Edsel factory. Talk about potential....
'Potential' is also a homeopathic term, and I am more inclined than
ever before to designate the memeinthemind model as pseudo-science, too.
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 02 Mar 2003 - 17:16:12 GMT