Re: Wade's hammer

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Wed Jan 09 2002 - 08:09:52 GMT

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Lamarckian?"

    Received: by id IAA04328 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 08:13:54 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 03:09:52 -0500
    From: "Philip Jonkers" <>
    Subject: Re: Wade's hammer
    Precedence: bulk

    >Been away (I've got a seven week old son now!) but
    wanted to join in=20
    >(haven't read the back posts yet...)
    >> And all I have to do to come to this conclusion is
    say, Harry Potter.
    >But what you can't say is "Harry Potter and the
    Philosopher's Stone" cos
    >it was renamed for the US release. Bear in mind
    that 'species' is not
    >really all that great a concept - very fuzzy - c.f.
    Drosophila species
    >complexes - some can interbreed, some partially
    interbreed, some matings
    >are sterile, some never mate (but *could* have
    fertile offspring but for
    >the behavioural constraints). Beware when people say
    *can't* mate; they
    >often just mean don't under normal circumstances. And
    plants! What a=20
    >bloody mess (partly because plant architecture is
    more robust).

    Why do we even have to talk about `species' in culture.
    The only field where it is valuable is Biology and
    even there as Chris points out (and I did too some
    months ago) you run into all kinds of difficulties
    produced by border-cases for instance.

    Culture and biology are both evolutionary processes,
    but that doesn't mean that a property present in one
    is also featured in the other. I again refer to
    Blackmore's The Meme Machine who can tell you more.

    By the way, congrats Chris with your son... Cheers!


    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 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 08:20:26 GMT