From: Robin Faichney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 18:03:23 GMT
Sunday, April 16, 2006, 6:14:16 PM, Scott wrote:
>>From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com>
>>It's interesting the way this discussion has developed. The issue of the
>>definition of the meme evolved very quickly into a discussion of "substrate
>>neutrality". Examples where the same information is carried on different
>>media were put forward by Kate, Keith and myself merely to emphasize the
>>nature of information, and thus the fact that memes, as items of
>>information, can be and are encoded not just in brains OR behavioural
>>patterns, but in brains AND behavioural patterns AND all kinds of
>>artifacts. That issue -- definition -- seems to me much more important --
>>especially given the fact that nobody has suggested that the substrate is
>>entirely neutral. But few of us seem to be very interested in it.
> Well Mogens mentioned Medium Theory and McLuhan. Jesse discussed aspects of
> the source that might be important to a given receiver. I'd say there's a
> few of us interested in these topics relted to media.
Did anyone else think that last "it" referred to such topics?
-- Best regards, Robin mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org =============================================================== 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 16 Apr 2006 - 18:42:34 GMT