Re: memetics-digest V1 #1319

From: Wade T. Smith (
Date: Wed 19 Mar 2003 - 22:46:03 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #1319"

    On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 04:15 PM, memetics-digest wrote:

    > What I can't agree with is the reduction of culture to genes.

    I am not aware of anyone who reduces culture to that singularity. IMHO, the main reason the concept of the meme was tossed into the air in the first place was because genes were obviously not adequate as full explanations for culture, although they did alot. But, as it was appearing, and continues to appear, that darwinian processes are universal, culture itself should conform to them, and, for the sake of understanding, we needed a mechanism for culture analogous to the mechanisms of organisms. The meme was born, as an analytical tool more than anything else.

    But, how far can culture be reduced until we find this meme thingee? It is my conclusion that culture is contingent upon the continuation of performances within it, and that this demands that the performances themselves be the units of evolution analogous to the gene.

    The rest of genetics- AGCT and mutations and environment and reproduction- all need to have analogs in memetics, and, I have come to the conclusion that only in the performance model can we provide for the most analogs.

    To me, memesinthemind is an attempt to reduce not only culture to the
    'mind', whatever that is, but indeed, to ignore environment and even time.

    - 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 19 Mar 2003 - 22:53:33 GMT