From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 21 Apr 2003 - 19:01:07 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wade T. Smith" <email@example.com>
> Yes, yes, of course, but this individual (with all individuality
> granted, no, demanded, by the model, as well as by fact), is only just
> _one_ of the participants in the performance- the cultural time-space.
> Just _one_ of the players on the stage.
> Don't forget the stage itself. The time of day. The sightlines of the
> audience. The acoustics of the venue. The presence of whining children
> in the hall. The braying of cell phones, the echo of police sirens. The
> warp of the floor.
> Don't forget the performance itself. it is, after all, what is
> perceived. Nothing (nothing!) that is in the brain of one of the
> individuals performing is being perceived.
> The performance itself is the medium of communication, but 'in itself'
> is also 'in toto'.
Still I think that the point of individuality needs to be focused upon
As eloborated as here above, you' re scheme seems right, but IMO
the fact of individuality plays a far more greater role than you 're
Despite the fact that indeed the stage ( whatever the pad) and the
performance itself ( whatever the pad) still the ' individual ' and
what is in his mind ( perceived or not) has the leading part in the
ways culture evolution is taking.
It is after all his precence, his existence that makes the other
parts worthwhile for us to perceive....
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 : Mon 21 Apr 2003 - 19:09:42 GMT