Re: Selfish meme?

Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 11:57:16 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: sex and the single meme"

    Received: by id MAA25097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:03:19 GMT
    From: <>
    Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:57:16 +0100
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Selfish meme?
    Message-ID: <3C51562C.920.1A6411@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 24 Jan 2002, at 19:46, Grant Callaghan wrote:

    > As far as meaning is concerned, words used as examples have no meaning
    > because they are not being used to say anything. In the example above, I am
    > not really saying I read a book yesterday. I'm just using the sentence to
    > display the relationship between a word and its position in a sentence.
    > Position determines the part of speech, not the word itself. You wouldn't
    > know what part it is without the words that preceed and follow it. So what
    > meaning it has is wholely dependent on how I use it.

    Good point, but i'd say a meme still stays the elementary basic
    cultural unit and meaning gets constructed out of a number of
    different memes. "Book" is one meme and stays the same in all
    the sentences but the meaning is different because it has different
    memes around it.

    It's like with genes. One allele is really nothing, not much can be
    constructed out of it. To construct an organism a number of genes
    have to work together to form it. The organism would be
    comparable to the meaning in memetics.

    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 : Fri Jan 25 2002 - 12:19:57 GMT