Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA11809 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:27:33 GMT Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:22:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200111260222.fAQ2MU005452@mail3.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [184.108.40.206] From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: A Question for Wade Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> Re: A Question for WadeDate: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:55:01 -0500
> "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> "Memetics Discussion List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>Reply-To: email@example.com
>Hi Joe Dees -
>>No, but you can act upon the ideas of mass production and interchangeable
>>parts to build a factory to produce cars and a whole lot of other products.
>And, yup, you can produce all sorts of memes.
>But, from my new perspective, none of those ideas are memes, at all. But,
>yes, if you act upon those ideas, and build that factory- that factory
>itself is a marvelous memeplex, and, could (could...) produce a meme.
>(But it doesn't have to- it could lie fallow, or unfinished, or,
>competition could ruin it.)
>Until and if you put together that factory, it hasn't made a meme. And
>until it does, there is no meme to speak of (other than the myriad of
>memes that make up the fabric of the factory).
>Once that car is available, then and only then can it be used. And only
>in the using can a meme evolve.
>I won't call an idea a meme- because, (besides the fact that it's already
>been called an idea), right now, I'm trying to maintain an absolute
>working perspective, similar, I suppose, to that strange subset of
>language-study that refuses to use E, although I think calling nothing
>that is not an actual artifact a meme is more useful and descriptive.
>I am trying to be difficult for a specific purpose.
And I am disagreeing with you because of a specific principle - that it is what Whitehead called a category error or a violation of the type/token distinction (Dennett, Fodor) to conflate particular examples, which may vary widely, with single common ideas or structural meaning-relations behind them.
>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)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
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 Nov 26 2001 - 02:36:22 GMT