Re: Faking It: The Internet Revolution Has Nothing to Do With the Nasdaq

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 13:30:06 BST

  • Next message: Lawrence DeBivort: "Memetic vulnerability: was: Faking It"

    Received: by id NAA28472 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:33:42 +0100
    Subject: Re: Faking It: The Internet Revolution Has Nothing to Do With the Nasdaq
    Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:30:06 -0400
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "memetics list" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    On 07/18/01 07:07, Chris Taylor said this-

    >preventing anything from evolving 'de novo'

    Of course, if it's written, someone wrote it- that someone with a head
    full of memes and nowhere else to put 'em.

    'De novo', or being the product of creativity, is itself somewhat a
    debated process, but I would come down quite happily on the side of "yes,
    Virginia, there are new things in the world, and evolution makes them in
    nature and entities (people) make them in culture."

    None of this to say that most of it all is just copies of what went
    before - that is, of course, a given.

    Besides, what would evolution _be_ if it weren't 'de novo'?

    And, yeah, with some weariness, I do realize, with the glint of the
    definitionalist, that evolution would be just what it is, and, how can a
    product of a process be 'new'?

    Twists. From start to finish.

    - Wade

    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 2b29 : Wed Jul 18 2001 - 13:38:20 BST