Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA29383 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:58:09 GMT Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:53:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200112030753.fB37rF207505@mail23.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: [18.104.22.168] From: "Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> <AaronLynch@aol.com>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 02:21:14 EST
> Re: Wilkins on the meme:engram relation firstname.lastname@example.orgReply-To: email@example.com
>In a message dated 12/3/2001 12:06:16 AM Central Standard Time, Joe Dees
>> I disagree, precisely because several related areas in disparate
>> may be conjoined by applying the term 'meme' to their relata. I have seen
>> other term, neo or not, that promises to do this. I also maintain that
>> the memetic life-cycle is understood to include both internal mushroom and
>> external spore, that the confusion that has been unfortunately and unfairly
>> attached to the term 'meme' will quite naturally and rightly abate.
>It does seem possible that the confusion will at some time abate. However, it
>seems much more likely to abate if more readers can see some works that
>express theory and observations without the word. Too many readers have
>become suspicious that the whole theory itself rests upon having a word that
>sounds like "gene," and that we are trying to "pull a fast one." It may be
>that some readers need to take one step at a time: first learning some
>evolutionary cultural replicator theory, and then taking up the matter of how
>best to express that theory across many disciplines and to interested lay
>people. It may even be valuable to have some works that are written up in two
>almost-identical ways: one with the word "meme" and the other without.
>Cloak's 1973 paper shows that theory can be expressed without the word, but
>unfortunately it has languished in obscurity for many years.
>Re-wording things can be a lot of work, though -- especially after spending
>years of relying heavily on the word "meme." I for one would have been much
>happier if Dawkins had handled the definition matter more carefully 25 years
>ago, and changed it only as necessary and only with well stated reasons.
even now, there is much debate as to what evolution generally is, with some objections being more reasonable (gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium), and some less (Lamarckianism, morphic resonance, etc.). This process is itself evolutionary, and every objection voiced adds to the evolution of our understanding, either by the inclusion of valid ideas or the exclusion of unsound ones. Why should we be perturbed by such an evolution, which was much more robust in the infancy of evolutionary understanding generally, taking place before our eyes and with our active participation, concerning memetics specifically? If we truly acknowledge the ubiquity of the evolutionary process in all things natural and cultural, we should nod rather than flinch at its inevitable precession in this matter.
>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 Dec 03 2001 - 08:04:23 GMT