Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA11614 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:01:35 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:46:48 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Memes and Archetypes Message-ID: <20010725194648.A11109@ii01.org> References: <F1401PN92vob16DpXca000039e0@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <F1401PN92vob16DpXca000039e0@hotmail.com>; from email@example.com on Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:17:14PM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:17:14PM -0400, Scott Chase wrote:
> First it might be a good thing to establish that Dawkinsian "memes" and
> Jungian "archetypes" indeed exist.
What does it mean to say that a pattern "really exists"? It obviously
does not exist in the same sense that an individual physical object does.
But in an essay entitled Real Patterns, in The Journal of Philosophy, Dan
Dennett argued that (some) patterns should, indeed, be considered real.
Also relevant are considerations of information -- items of which patterns
obviously are -- and subjectivity and objectivity. Most of these aspects
are discussed, with particular reference to memetics, on my website.
-- "The distinction between mind and matter is in the mind, not in matter." Robin Faichney -- Inside Information -- http://www.ii01.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 25 2001 - 20:05:39 BST