Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA14441 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:05:11 +0100 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:16:50 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science Message-ID: <20010419151650.A2463@ii01.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745DBC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745DBC@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from email@example.com on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:06:55PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:06:55PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> <Religion is typically about following after entities which possibly
> > even exist. Memetics could be in the same ballpark, but I wonder if this
> > means memetics too is dangerous and insiduous.>
> Indeed, indeed. This is I think what some ignore, others embrace,
> and some of us worry about constantly.
I think that in some cases at least, an entity must be considered to
exist, for some purposes, and not to do so, for others.
Don't those who feel strongly against that proposition need to find very
clear definitions of "entity" and "existence"?
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
=============================================================== 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 2b29 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 16:11:59 BST