From: Wade T. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 22 May 2003 - 13:46:10 GMT
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
> 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?
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 : Thu 22 May 2003 - 13:52:05 GMT