RE: Precision of replication

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 04:25:38 GMT

  • Next message: Richard Brodie: "RE: Precision of replication"

    >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: RE: Precision of replication
    >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:38:35 -0400
    >Hi, Scott --
    >"Replication" is a word that we now avoid using in our memetic research --
    >it caused confusion and didn't lead to the distinction that we needed. I
    >shared some of our thinking about replication and imitation in a posting of
    >a few days ago.... I am hoping to hear from Richard about his take on my
    >thoughts on the necessity of identicalness in dissemination.
    >We have also come to avoid the genetic analogy for the same reason, as I
    >tried to explain at least a year ago (to little avail on this list <smile>.
    >My hope here is not that we will all come to an agreement on definitions
    >models, but that we might share some tidbit of information or thought that
    >may fit into someone else's work and help out. So, personally, I pick and
    >choose among the bits of views that are presented here, and with that and
    >other work my own body of understanding has grown and prospered.
    But at what point does what you do cease to become memetics. If memetics is about cultural replicators and there happen to be no cultural replicators, what does that say for memetics and can what you do be properly called memetics?

    _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed 18 Jun 2003 - 04:33:45 GMT