Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Oct 07 2001 - 15:19:37 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves"

    Received: by id OAA06428 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 14:40:17 +0100
    Message-ID: <002301c14f3b$39024780$6c03bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <000d01c14795$99018f40$33a0bed4@default><><><001701c149e5$7566e2e0$8601bed4@default> <>
    Subject: Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves
    Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:19:37 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 1:11 PM
    Subject: Re: Thesis: Memes are DNA-Slaves

    > Philip:
    > > > Exactly! You and I seem to be on the same level here...
    > > > The medium not only has to have some criterion on which memes to
    > > > adopt but also it should be motivated, in general, to adopt
    > > > memes in the first place!
    > Kenneth:
    > > I would like to add a little, tiny thing to that.
    > > The medium, whatever that might be, should not only motivated to
    > > adopt memes, but it should be also at the " right place in time " !!

    > Fair enough.
    > Though memetic is less blind than bioligical in the sense
    > that it can be controlled to some degree, memes are a product
    > of human creativity after all, it can be that memes showing
    > up today are more useful tomorrow. Such as the anti-terrorism
    > inventions done prior to 11-Sept now come in awfully handy.
    > Although the event of 11-Sept is likely to ignite a tremendous
    > memetic boost towards developing more anti-terror memes.
    > In response, terror-memes will tend to be subjected to
    > evolutionary boosts too, triggering development of more
    > anti-terror memes. And so on....

    Hi Philip,

    << Ok, can agree on that !
    But I don 't think that was the reason why those terrorists threw themselves
    upon the WTC towers though !!
    The attacks were due to give the US a lesson, not to provoke an avanlanche
    of anti- terrorists- memes !
    IMO, just the oppositie in a more than ideal way of seeing things, would be
    the reason for such attacks_ that more people around the world would
    stand up against the US supremacy and provoke a war against its alies
    and friends.
    That were the memes which were attented to be developed, but the US
    turned the case opside down.

    But boosting, only anti- terrorists - memes won 't take away the reasons
    why ! There will be public bounderies where against law- inforcements,
    and the reduction of personal freedom will bounce.
    Anti- terrorists- memes will only have their affect when people know where
    they are up against.
    Reducing my civil, private rights in order to find any information about
    Bin Ladens network is bulls... I did nothing wrong, therefore any govern-
    ment has no reason to investigate my private life.
    If they do they violate my rights. And counting in nationwide security as
    a reason for such acts shows how far such governments lack political
    responsibility. It is not now they should act, they must eliminated
    along time ago.

    > Kenneth:
    > > Thinking like this, I assume that we can say that every meme of the
    > > now is also, in essence a meme of the future !?
    > Only if it's successful enough, yes... unsuccessful ones will be
    > by more successful ones, it's a law of evolution.

    << Are you sure, that those unsuccesful ones don 't stay behind somewhere !?
     I don 't ! History repeats itself over and over again. Memes will linger
    only time, contents and context will differ.

    > > Assuming of course that every memetic lineage is never finished,
    > that it always evolves further ( new meanings are added, new effects are
    > > sorted out,...) No !?
    > Evolution knows no limits as long as there are resources and as long as
    > they are finite in a sense that offer can't keep up with demand.

     << In a way you are implying here a kind of memetic determinism.
    That is, that somewhere in the future, memetic evolution will cease to
    evolve further due of lacking reasons for it !?
    That in a sense, memetic evolution would stop if the demands for a further
    evolution would cease to exist, that somehow nomore new meanings, no-
    more new effects and aspects could be added !?
    It sounds like you are searching for a memetic saturation- point !
    I did some inquery in that field but never got the hang of it, though
    ting....( see archives ).



    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 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 14:51:44 BST