From: Richard Brodie (email@example.com)
Date: Tue 27 Jan 2004 - 16:49:34 GMT
M Lissack wrote:
> There is no established "definition" of a meme. There is a
> loose collection of fuzzy notions which all share the label
> or word token "meme."
I think there are only a few people in the world who really understand
memes. To them it's not fuzzy, but I concede there are many more people who
don't get it than who do. You could say the same about genetic evolution, on
an even larger scale.
> Science does not advance by treating definitions as given but
> by questioning always questioning definitions.
Great. Start by questioning yours.
> Your web site fails to point to much of anything post the
> year 2000. Do you believe that all worthy work (save your
> own postings) stopped then? Do you really believe that a
> book you wrote more than a decade ago was prescient enough to
> answer challenges raised after the book was written?
I haven't seen anything that would change the popular explanation of the
basics of memetics, which is what my book is about. But it's odd you would
comment on a book you haven't even read.
> Yes I am challenging the "conventional wisdom." I am not the
> first nor will I be the last. You as a self proclaimed
> author of that "convention" are much more interested in
> defending your territory than in addressing the many
> questions which get raised here and in other forums.
I have no territory and if you read the first 27 pages of my book you would
know that I credit others with the definition of meme and certainly don't
claim it for myself. My book is simply an attempt to lay it out for
> So for the last time I ask you again to respond to Bruce's
> challenges with something other than hubris or platitudes. If
> you have no interest in memetics as an academic field fine.
> If you think Bruce has raised unnecessary issues tell us why
> you think so. If you think Bruce's challenges can be easily
> answered tell us how to do so. If you think Bruce's
> challenges are invalid tell us why. But stop answering by
> telling us that you said all that in Virus of the Mind. You
> did not and you could not because Bruce's challenges came much later.
I've said before Bruce's challenges are a fine pointer for interested people
to flesh out with data what we suspect is a useful theory. I don't see how
your proposed redefinition of meme addresses them. It seems to address your
misunderstanding of the Intentional Stance.
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 : Wed 28 Jan 2004 - 10:13:03 GMT