From: Wade T. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 22 May 2003 - 19:33:00 GMT
On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 02:57 PM, Joe wrote:
> So, you're claiming that Wade's performance model might be sufficient
> to explain instinctual communication by lesser animals, but not by
> apes and humans, due to the problem of multiple modes of arbitrary-
> and-by-common-agreement symbolicity? interesting.
That is interesting, although not in the way I suspect you think it is.
Of course, the performance model does not _explain_ instinctual
communication, it simply accepts it, in the same way it accepts
breathing and hunger and pain and memory and social organization and
grooming rituals and protective displays- as part of the nature from
which we homo sapiens have formed. That animals and humans share this
sort of instinctual communicative abilities and that culture is made up
of such players, is granted, not explained. There is much to explain
about how culture twists and turns that memetics should let behavioral
cognitive science take care of itself. The performance model is ready
to take whatever comes from such study in stride, as qualities and
demands of the performer and the observer, and the ways they both
perceive and interact within the venue.
That we take all these natural responses and behaviors with us
everywhere we go, especially into cultural venues, is simply accepted
by the performance model.
After all, we do have humans to deal with, not animals, when we go to
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 - 19:38:55 GMT