Re: Memes and Archetypes

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 14:15:55 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Memes and Archetypes"

    Received: by id OAA13113 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:18:58 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Memes and Archetypes
    Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:15:55 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 13:15:55.0515 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A378CB0:01C115D5]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Robin Faichney <>
    >Subject: Re: Memes and Archetypes
    >Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:25:09 +0100
    >On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:11:03PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
    > > On 07/25/01 14:46, Robin Faichney said this-
    > >
    > > >What does it mean to say that a pattern "really exists"?
    > >
    > > Top of my head- that it can be mathematically described, and replicated
    > > in a model. That it be non-random.
    >That is more-or-less what Dennett says.
    > > However, that becomes ludicrously impossible to prove,
    >No, non-randomness is easy to prove. It's randomness that's difficult
    >(or impossible).
    > > In nature, a set of genes will produce a species-identifiable life form.
    > > That would seem to be pattern. That lifeform exhibits definite behaviors
    > > upon certain stimulus. That would seem to be pattern. These behaviors
    > > alterable by environment. That would also seem to be a pattern, and is
    > > the pattern-justification for culture in general, and thus memes in
    > > specific.
    > >
    > > Memes are the shape of the webs we weave from one social entity to
    > > another.
    > >
    > > There is a pattern in the way we start and continue the web.
    > >
    > > There might also be a pattern in the way it ends up.
    > >
    > > But, I'm not so sure.
    >I was with you up to there. But what do you mean by "the way it ends up"?
    > > The shape of the crystal, in gravityless space, is fixed by the
    > > of the molecule.
    >So what?
    > > We more need the descriptions and the patterns begun by environments to
    > > distill the patterns of the interaction of entities with it.
    >The line we draw between entities and environment depends on where we're
    >standing at the time, so it's not entirely meaningful to say that for
    >one we need more of the other.
    > > Interference patterns.
    >For a radical skeptic you say some mighty vague things.
    I've seen some pretty astonishing "patterns" in clouds, which sometimes
    resemble objects I am familiar with. Ink blots probably go the same way. How
    do we know memes or archetypes aren't in the minds of the beholders, who
    ascribe the label of meme or archetype to some apparent pattern?

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 14:25:36 BST