From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 26 May 2003 - 14:51:49 GMT
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: transmission
> Only if one considers one's own mind to be part of the venue, but that is
> not what Wade means. He is denying the internal existence of memes
> prior to their performative expression; this means that NO ideas can be
> thought of, NO interpretations or conclusions can be made, NO
> unexpressed performances can cognitively exist, nor can the intention
> to express them exist. I find this bizarre and nonsensical.
Wade did express his feelings about this bit already, but I would like to
state my own thoughts, if I may.
Wade does indeed consider the mind be part of the venue, he just denies
the existence of ' memes ' within in.
IMO, in Wade's mind, the mind being part of the venue means_ it construct,
the interconnections, the neurons, the synapses, the signiling, the working
of the mind (though the cognitive functioning of the human mind) itself is
of the venue,as the organ_ not what it can/ could / would inhibit/ hold
> Wade is denying the cognitive gestalt; he is rejecting the very idea of
> mentally stored memes. Whatever you've got the hang of is NOT what
> Wade is saying.
Yes, I am aware of that. I did mention that Wade 's scheme comes close
to what I had in mind since the day I found this list.
The initial elements aren 't changed much, but Wade 's scheme gives me
I for one isn 't sure who is right and who is wrong. Unless we find some-
thing that is meme- like in the brain I 'll be in two minds (sic) about the
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 26 May 2003 - 14:57:57 GMT