Re: A Question for Wade

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Mon Nov 26 2001 - 14:09:08 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Verbal memeticism"

    Received: by id OAA13111 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:14:42 GMT
    Subject: Re: A Question for Wade
    Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:09:08 -0500
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "memetics list" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    On 11/26/01 07:34, 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.

    - Wade

    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