From: Hans-Cees Speel (hanscees@hanscees.com)
Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 18:11:11 GMT

  • Next message: salice@gmx.net: "Re: Darwinian Processes and Memes in Architecture"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA13498 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:11:30 GMT
    From: "Hans-Cees Speel" <hanscees@hanscees.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:11:11 +0100
    Subject: test
    Message-ID: <3C1508CF.29076.AD9580F@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <000b01c1818e$b6650f20$549ebed4@default>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Content-description: Mail message body
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    > Hi Salice, Ray,
    > > >Furtheron, i feel kind of annoyed by people using memetics theory
    > > >for expressing their personal tastes and giving pseudo-evidence to
    > > >prove that their taste is universal true for everyone. Where's the
    > > >science in there?
    > > I agree.
    > >
    > > I think it is a real problem that we need to look at. As another
    > > example
    > I
    > > really liked the historical background given in Agner Fog's book
    > > 'Cultural Selection' (much of which can be found online at
    > > www.agner.org/cultset/) but I think his cultural r/K theory is way
    > > too oversimplified and full of subjective classifications. I think
    > > there should be a broader discussion of this. If this field is ever
    > > to be taken seriously we need to be
    > careful
    > > not to overreach, and I am not certain what we can do to keep the
    > > reins
    > in.
    > << I agree with both of you, expressing your feelings that memetics is
    > misused to get personal gain, some points do need clarification, but I
    > don 't see to which extend the two writers of this piece would gain so
    > much being one a member of a division of mathematics and the other is
    > deep in psychology I suppose. But that is all beside the point.
    > The point is that both look at architectue from a memetic point of
    > view, and IMO that is a good start. Where you think they are all for
    > modernism, it seems to me that just the opposite is true. And
    > moreover, in the para- graph beginning with ' different styles
    > competed with each other....( just before part 7) they express IMO a
    > very important issue indeed. The fact that in architecture the lowest
    > of the information treshold is the one that gets propagated is
    > meaningful for memetics. What makes memes propagate in the first place
    > !? Undo any meme of its rich information content and you get the '
    > meme- core ', in a broader sense the memetype.
    > In other words, quantity becomes quality, but this sounds paradoxal,
    > but it is not, the more you get rid of additional info the better a
    > meme will propagate itself, simplicity is the norm. Also, their new
    > (8) factor seems to have a workable angle, encapsulation got indeed a
    > nasty ring to it, but remerber the discussion about G- memes,
    > artefacts ( Question to Wade) and the definition of imitation.
    > There too you found encapsulation. The beauty of a statue is within
    > that piece of art, we drag it out, it makes itself more attractive to
    > us manipu- lating our emotions in order to propagate. The beauty is
    > than protected by the whole of the gesture, the material of which it
    > is made, form, pose, inside a complex of other memes the beauty is
    > insulated from other more hostile memes. On an individual bias, most
    > likely.
    > You apply to them as not being original, to misuse memetics, but in
    > doing that you are doing exactly the same thing of which you wanna
    > fight. You start from out your ' scientific ' approach, which is due
    > to certain rules and obligations, and I understand that, but ordering
    > people to do just that, is exactly the same what you reproach them,
    > you are willing to protect your ' political ' bias where upon memetics
    > is placed. But, IMO, and that counts still for everything, you need
    > the dichotomy in any debate.
    > My opinion is, try to see this the other way round, try to see this as
    > were the title, "A memetic theory to express their discomfort with
    > Modernism", and you get a whole other ballgame. They made a few, but
    > important mistakes, but if this can contribute to a better
    > understanding of to ' how ' memetics/ memes work, I am all for for
    > such kind of tokens. That is to say, that is why this list is for, to
    > discuss the ramifications for human culture as a whole.
    > ===============================================================
    > 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)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
    Hans-Cees Speel http://www.hanscees.com
    pgp public key at http://www.hanscees.com/hcs.asc

    Editor "Journal of Memetics Evolutionary Models of Information
    submit papers to the new managing editors at
    w.m.dejong@tbm.tudelft.nl or mikeb@media.mit.edu

    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)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 18:18:39 GMT