Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA02180 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:05:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FB7@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Memetic vulnerability: was: Faking It Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:24:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
If I can link this comment to your response to Chris where you mention
racism, again whilst there are differences in the details of particular
racisms, there are surely underlying commonalities to beliefs in order for
them to be called racist in the first place? These would include the
discrimination against a particular group of people due to them being of a
different ethnic or national origin.
In principle one might be able to reconstruct an ancestral meme from
analysing the components of a range of related memes, a bit like linguists
do when trying to construct root languages in a particular family, and as
some genetic scientists are doing with genes. According to New Scientist,
some research team have reconstructed a gene sequence of a yeast from the
time of the dinosaurs through this method of comparing contemporary yeasts,
and working out the genes common to an ancestor.
There are hox genes as well, which provide body blueprints, so that if you
fiddle with them, you get all sorts of primordial features appearing (IIRC
correctl chickens with teeth, although that might have been achieved a
Anyway, aren't we risking obscuring the underlying pattern in groups of
memes by regarind ghem as unique, a bit like saying all snowflakes are
unique without noticing their underlying symmetrical similarities?
I guess I'm not sure what value your idea has from a theoretical (or
empirical) point of view?
> From: Kenneth Van Oost
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:39 pm
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Memetic vulnerability: was: Faking It
> Hi Vincent,
> You wrote,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vincent Campbell <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I'm not sure I agree with this Kenneth,
> > If we look at nature, surely we see patterns of species in lots of
> > environments developing the same responses, to highly consistent
> > environmental features, e.g. lots of species have eyes (of varying
> > [is that what they call convergent evolution?] Surely memes must work
> > within the limited (perhaps not as limited as the physical world for
> > selection) environment of human society?
> << In my view memes still work within the limited environment of human
> society !
> But I think I construes the notion of limitation a little bit more broadly
> as you do. In a sense, I expand that limitation beyond the sensorial
> bounderies. I expand the concept of memes as far as the concept of
> abstraction, whereby the consequence of any possible meme gets
> directly included in the way I present the subject.
> I include directly a " practical " way of application if you like.
> And by the same token of abstraction " anything " can " act " as a meme
> in such a form of concept.
> Not sure this makes sense,
> Best regards,
> ( I am, because we are)
> 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
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 20 2001 - 12:09:15 BST