Date: Sun 09 Mar 2003 - 18:24:57 GMT
> On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 07:17 AM, memetics-digest wrote:
> > As my forgoing example amply demonstrates, you seem to entertain an
> > exceedingly narrow view of what constitutes performance or its
> > alteration.
> To the contrary, I view performance with a very wide lens. But at
> least I acknowledge it- you seem to think it somehow is not necessary.
Necessary to replication, yes; essential to existence, no.
> That newspaper article you mention- is that not a performance? Of
> course it is.
According to another email of yours, it is an agent-object.
> > A novel meme alters the gestalt in which it
> > embeds, so that other memes, and other behaviors based upon them,
> > are altered, even if the initial meme is not recommunicated.
> This statement is ludicrously meaningless to the performance model.
Which is one reason why the performace model is inadequate. If it were all there was, people could not even carry on a continuing discussion concerniong it.
> Herein somewhat modified to make some sense to the performance model-
> "A performance might alter the gestalt in which it occurs, and other
> performances following it might alter the gestalt even more, or
> reinforce the ability to continue similar performances."
Sorry, but one of the primary differences between memetics and genetics is the identity of the shaping environment. For genetics, it is the terrestrial ecological environment; for memetics it is the cognitive gestalt.
> - Wade
> 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
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 09 Mar 2003 - 18:20:59 GMT