Re: transmission

From: Wade T. Smith (
Date: Thu 22 May 2003 - 13:46:10 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: transmission"

    On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 09:34 PM, Joe wrote:

    > Latent is still existent.

    Not to culture it is not. I've already given an unequivocal example of an extinct culture- there is nothing 'latent' in that artifact, and nothing 'latent' in the Tlingit brains that observed it that will bring it back to cultural life.

    > This commonality of intended meaning
    > perduring through a plurality of nonrelational actions is something
    > that
    > your model cannot wrap its methodology around

    To the contrary, these are the very things, if I understand you correctly, that the performance model totally enjoins- it is precisely the plurality of non-relational and relational actions that it explains and works into its model. It is the only methodology, IMHO, that does not ignore the fact of performance and the influence of chance and accident and the very fact that performance is not entirely intention at any time.

    Again, by your raising this objection, I can only see that you do not understand the performance model.

    Would you please play devil's advocate for a spell and tell me how the performance model works?

    - 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 : Thu 22 May 2003 - 13:52:05 GMT