From: M Lissack (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 28 Jan 2004 - 11:55:19 GMT
To the list:
Richard is stuck in his own world and is unwilling to
even attempt to engage with those not in that world.
Please forgive me if I nothing bother to engage with
--- Richard Brodie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> > author of that "convention" are much more
> interested in
> > defending your territory than in addressing the
> > questions which get raised here and in other
> 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
> interested laypeople.
> > So for the last time I ask you again to respond to
> > 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
> > 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.
> Richard Brodie
> 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.
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
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 - 12:07:01 GMT