Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA13111 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:14:42 GMT Subject: Re: A Question for Wade Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:09:08 -0500 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011126140942.AAA15869@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 11/26/01 07:34, firstname.lastname@example.org said this-
>You are right in reducing memes to what can be found in physical artifacts.
Thanks. I don't see it as a matter of right- I see it as a matter of
utility and parsimony.
>But you limit physical artifacts too much.
I thought I was painting them with possibly too broad a brush- it is a
nag at me, this fact that just about everything ever made is a meme.
Certainly everything made _again_ is. And everything made with a want to
have it used could be. But the hermit who takes his mousetrap with him
takes even the memeness of it away.
But what makes meme A be taken up and made again? Let us find the
evolutionary niche of the actual artifact- where do we see teenagers'
jeans once again cut below the bellybutton? Map this niche. Predict where
it will be next. Make a science with this thing.
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 - 14:20:39 GMT