Re: Books please... (thank-you note)

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 16:26:16 BST

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "RE: FW: England humour"

    Received: by id QAA16201 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:30:47 +0100
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    X-Authentication-Warning: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f
    Subject: Re: Books please... (thank-you note)
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:26:16 +0200 (CEST)
    References: <> <> <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5
    Precedence: bulk

    Thanks a lot Mark, Vincent, Chris, Virginia, Scott, TJ and Ted,
    for answering to my question.
    I will take all of your recommendations to heart. This means,
    I'd be off the street for, at least, far into next year.

    Hi Vincent,
    with reading the Meme-Machine having a high impact on me, and
    this being also to reason for joining this group,
    I'm curious to know what things you don't like about it.

    To deny that culture does not evolve seems to me testimony of
    either foolishness or ignorance. Examples of cultural
    evolutionary elements abound: means of transport, technological
    inventions, computers, law, medicine, science, weapons of war, ....
    I presume we all agree on this evolutionary side of culture and
    hence memetics is plausible on this count.
    The problem about memetics that keeps recurring to me reminds
    of me of the trade as started off myself: quantum mechanics.
    I am referring to interpretation. After 75 years of hot debate,
    there is has not yet been reached a consensus on how to
    interpret unambiguously the results of QM. This is because the
    interpretation is not (yet) experimentally verifiable.
    As long as its interpretation is metaphysical multiple
    alternative interpretations can roam freely.

    To be honest, I have some difficulties myself with accepting the
    meme-eye's view of memetics to be its correct interpretation.
    One of the problems being, I think, that it tends to regard
    humans as mere carriers and transmitters of memes devoid of will
    when clearly culture is maintained by people and thus being
    responsible for its directions.

    Anyway, I will return to the subject of interpretation of
    memetics later on. If you have some other points of difficulty
    mentioned in the Meme-machine please let me/us know Vincent.


    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 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 16:35:40 BST